zhook-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it connects to a WebSocket (implying a persistent connection), waits for the next event (not historical), returns the full payload immediately, and has a 60-second timeout. It doesn't cover error handling or what happens after timeout, but provides substantial operational context.

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 highly concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with essential information (action, resource, mechanism, timeout). Every sentence earns its place by adding critical context without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (real-time event waiting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core behavior, timeout, and return, but lacks details on error cases, output format, or WebSocket connection lifecycle. For a tool with these gaps, it does well but isn't fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (hookId and timeoutSeconds). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the timeout default (60 seconds) and that it's for waiting, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 specific action ('waits for the NEXT event to arrive'), resource ('on a specific hook'), and mechanism ('Connects to the Zhook WebSocket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_event or list_events which retrieve existing events rather than waiting for new ones.

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 implies usage by specifying it waits for the next event on a hook, suggesting it's for real-time monitoring rather than historical queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_event or trigger_webhook, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an existing hook.

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