hookbase_get_event_debug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a cURL command, implying it's a read-only operation that outputs a command string rather than executing the replay. However, it doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like (e.g., plain text, JSON), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence: 'Generate a cURL command to replay an event for debugging purposes.' It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential context without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (simple with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It clearly states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or usage constraints. For a debugging tool, more context on how the generated cURL command can be used would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'event_id' documented as 'The ID of the event to generate cURL for.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Generate a cURL command to replay an event for debugging purposes.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('cURL command'), and context ('for debugging purposes'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'hookbase_replay_delivery' or 'hookbase_bulk_replay', which might also involve event replay but with different approaches.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'for debugging purposes,' which gives some context, but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'hookbase_replay_delivery' (which might replay without generating a cURL command) or 'hookbase_get_event' (which might retrieve event details without replay). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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