hook_dry_run

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

With no annotations, the description discloses static-only behavior ('Labelled STATIC_ONLY', 'Offline', 'Quick STATIC check'). It does not detail side effects (likely none) but could clarify what 'exit calls' means.

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, no waste. Key information (static, offline, purpose, sibling reference) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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; description omits return format (e.g., what the exit call list looks like). With many sibling inspection tools (inspect_hook_wasm, analyze_hook), broader usage guidance is missing. Output clarity and tool differentiation are insufficient.

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 25% (only candidateTxType described). The description adds minimal parameter meaning ('HookOn match' implies hookOn relates to hook trigger conditions, but no details on wasmHex/wasmBase64 or hookOn format). Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 ('check') and resource ('hook firing and exit calls in WASM'). It explicitly distinguishes from execute_hook, making the static vs. dynamic contrast obvious.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Quick STATIC check') and when-not-to-use ('For REAL bytecode execution use execute_hook'), naming the alternative tool directly.

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