get_hook_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as read-only, which signals safety, but does not cover error behavior (e.g., hash not found) or performance. Listing fields adds some transparency, but more detail would improve.

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?

Single sentence with a parenthetical, efficient and front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, though parameter info is missing. Could be improved without bloat.

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?

No output schema, so description partial covers return values by listing fields. Missing error conditions, required auth, or pagination (if any). Adequate but not thorough for a fetch tool with this complexity.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain the format of hookHash (e.g., hex) or the effect of the network parameter (default mainnet mentioned in schema but not in description). The purpose mentions 'by hash', but that is about the tool, not the parameter.

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 clearly states it fetches a HookDefinition ledger object by hash, listing key fields (CreateCode WASM, HookOn, fee, reference count) and labels it read-only. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_account_hooks (list all) or get_hook_state (state data).

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 use when you have a hook hash and want the definition, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparisons to alternatives like get_account_hooks or get_hook_state. No context on prerequisites or limitations.

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