hook_diff

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Offline' indicating no network calls, and lists what differences are detected. However, it does not specify any destructive effects, authentication requirements, or return format beyond implied output.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, every word adds value. No fluff.

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?

Provides a comprehensive overview of what the tool compares. With an output schema present (not shown but stated), it is not required to detail return values. The description covers the essential aspects for an offline comparison tool.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description names aspects (imports/exports, HookOn, etc.) but does not explicitly map them to parameters. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but still leaves ambiguity about which parameter corresponds to which aspect.

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 it compares two Hook versions and lists specific differences (imports/exports, HookOn changes, size/instruction deltas, security-sensitive capabilities). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_hook_trigger or execute_hook.

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 usage for comparing hook versions before/after an upgrade. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear and unique among siblings.

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