zhook-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time metrics' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 the purpose with specific details (real-time metrics, request counts, success/failure rates). Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 (a metrics retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like data freshness or access requirements. This leaves the agent with insufficient context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (hookId and timeWindow) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the impact of timeWindow choices or hookId format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get real-time metrics') and the resource ('for a specific hook'), with specific metrics mentioned (request counts, success/failure rates). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hook' (which likely returns hook configuration) and 'get_aggregated_hook_metrics' (which might provide aggregated data across multiple hooks). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_aggregated_hook_metrics' to fully earn 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_aggregated_hook_metrics' or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.

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