Hook Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the behavioral safety is established. The description adds that it returns 'config fragments', which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, idempotency, or the effect of null root parameter.

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 of 10 words, front-loading the action. It is concise but at the cost of omitting parameter explanations. It earns its brevity but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 three parameters and an output schema, the description should at least hint at the role of each parameter. It does not explain what a 'hook config fragment' is, nor how the parameters influence the output. The output schema exists but the description provides insufficient context for agent decision.

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 must compensate. It vaguely implies the client parameter via 'for Codex or Claude Code', but does not explain 'root' or 'command'. The parameters are left completely undocumented, making it hard for an agent to know how to use them correctly.

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 tool returns local hook config fragments, specifying the verb 'return' and the resource 'local hook config fragments'. It further narrows the context to Codex or Claude Code, distinguishing it from other memory tools that handle different aspects like events or status.

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 mentions 'for Codex or Claude Code' indicating the target clients, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory.hook_events or memory.hook_status. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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