hook_method

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: captures arguments on-enter and return value on-leave, posts messages to Python side. Missing details on permissions, side effects, or hook removal.

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?

Three sentences: first states action, second explains behavior, third provides examples. Front-loaded, no redundant words, perfectly concise.

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?

Describes core function and gives usage examples, but lacks details on output/message format, hook lifecycle (persistence, removal), error handling, and session significance. Adequate but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only indirectly explains 'module' and 'symbol' via the phrase 'on module:symbol'. The 'session' parameter is not explained at all, leaving ambiguity about its role.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Install a tracing hook on module:symbol', clearly specifying the action and target resource. This distinguishes from sibling tools like attach_pid or enumerate_modules, which serve different purposes.

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?

Provides specific use cases (e.g., tracing bytecode dispatcher, MBA handler, anti-debug callback) giving clear context for when to use. However, lacks explicit 'do not use' guidance or alternatives.

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