audit_account_hooks

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Read-only network + offline analysis', which clarifies safety. However, it omits details like performance implications for many hooks, error handling, or network dependency details.

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 concise but lacks structure. It does not include parameter details or a clear breakdown of steps. While efficient, it is incomplete.

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?

For a complex multi-step tool (fetch all hooks, retrieve each WASM, run analyzer), the description is too brief. It does not mention output format, analyzer behavior, or limitations. With no output schema, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (address, network) beyond what the schema already gives. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 (Fetch, pull, run), the resource (every hook on an account, each HookDefinition's WASM), and the outcome (run analyzer over all). It distinguishes from siblings like get_account_hooks (list only) and analyze_hook (single analysis).

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 this is for comprehensive auditing but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No mentions of when not to use or alternative tools for simpler tasks.

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