list_hooks

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

The description discloses that validation warnings are returned for unknown events, missing binaries, and duplicates, and optionally includes a template catalog. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (no side effects), which is a gap given the absence of annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key details without any filler words. It is well front-loaded.

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?

With full schema coverage and only two optional parameters, the description provides adequate context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. However, it could be more complete by noting the read-only nature or the expected output format.

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 covers both parameters completely (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; 'optionally include the catalog' mirrors the include_templates parameter 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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('Claude Code hooks') across three scopes, with additional details about validation warnings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'scaffold_hook', though the action is clearly distinct.

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 use for inspecting hooks before creation or modification, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scaffold_hook'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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