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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of destinations. It doesn't explain what a 'destination' entails, the structure of the output, or any behavioral traits like pagination or errors. While the purpose is clear, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use and interpret results from this tool in a real-world scenario.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'hookId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing extra details in the description.

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 ('List') and resource ('destinations configured for a specific webhook'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'list_hooks' or 'get_destination', which would require mentioning it's specifically for destinations associated with a hook ID rather than a general listing.

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 minimal guidance by specifying 'for a specific webhook', implying usage when you have a hookId. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use advice, such as comparing to 'get_destination' (for single destination details) or 'list_hooks' (for hooks themselves), and doesn't mention prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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