get_commit_hotspots

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Identifies coupled modules that might have hidden dependencies' and describes the return value, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what git history it reads, performance implications, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for an analysis tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably structured with an Args section and Returns line, but the first two sentences are redundant ('frequently changed together' and 'coupled modules' essentially repeat the same idea). The Returns line also restates the purpose. It is not overly long, but the redundancy makes it less concise than ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is only partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but the Returns section is vague ('Analysis of modules that frequently change together') without specifying the format or how to interpret results. It also omits caveats or additional context needed for an agent to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an explicit Args block explaining each parameter: repo_path, days_back, min_cochange_frequency, and top_n. It adds plain-language meaning such as 'Days to analyze' and 'Minimum times modules must change together,' which goes beyond the schema's titles and defaults. However, it could still provide more detail (e.g., units, edge cases) to fully compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Find modules that are frequently changed together in commits.' It also adds context about identifying coupled modules and hidden dependencies. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_code_hotspots or trace_dependency_impact, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases beyond the basic purpose. The description implies it is for co-change analysis but never says when it is preferred over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.