Review Hook Capture

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

The description adds the key behavioral detail 'without promoting memory', which is not deducible from annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not explain other effects (e.g., whether the hook capture is updated, if the path must exist, or any side effects). Annotations are not contradicted.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint. It is efficiently written, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for parameters) could improve scannability.

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 purpose (recording a review outcome) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It covers the core action and constraint but omits details like input validation rules, what 'hook capture' refers to, and the exact effect on the system. The output schema may compensate, but the description itself is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the 4 required parameters (path, status, reviewed_by, reason). The parameter semantics are entirely left to the schema, which provides only types and an enum for status. The description should at least clarify the role of each parameter.

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 'Record', the resource 'hook capture', the location 'under inbox/session-events/', and the critical constraint 'without promoting memory'. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory.hook_config (configuration) and memory.review_recommendation_outcome (recommendations for review outcomes).

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 for recording a review without memory promotion, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.review_recommendation_outcome or memory.write_proposal. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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