zhook-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'historical aggregated metrics' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'aggregated' entails (e.g., summary statistics). This leaves significant gaps for a metrics 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Get historical aggregated metrics') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a metrics tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, aggregation methods, error handling, and usage context, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, with three parameters well-described in the schema (startDate, endDate, groupBy). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying date ranges without detailing parameter interactions or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('historical aggregated metrics for a specific hook'), specifying the scope with 'custom date ranges'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hook_metrics' by emphasizing aggregation and historical data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_hook_metrics' or 'list_events', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for historical metrics but lacks explicit context for selection.

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