analyze_hook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Offline' and that it returns SARIF-lite findings, but does not state whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly defines the action and output, the second adds context. Minimal waste, though 'THE MOAT' may be jargon. Efficient but could be slightly clearer.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (unseen), the description only mentions SARIF-lite findings. It lacks details on parameter usage, prerequisites, or error cases, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters and no schema documentation.

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 coverage is 0% with 7 parameters. The description mentions 'CreateCode WASM (+ optional SetHook params)' implying wasmHex/wasmBase64 are inputs, but does not explain flags, grants, hookOn, namespace, or parameters. Partial compensation, but insufficient.

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 performs static analysis on hooks using a security rule engine and returns SARIF-lite findings. It distinguishes itself as 'The first Hooks-specific analyzer' among many hook-related siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The term 'Offline' implies no network dependency, but there is no comparison with alternatives like inspect_hook_wasm or hook_dry_run.

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