hook_execution_postmortem

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('never signs/submits'), describes rate-limiting behavior (serial RPC calls with >=1100ms intervals, tolerant of 'Rate limited' responses), and explains the semantics of 'agree' being null in degraded scenarios. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about side effects or constraints.

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 relatively long but each sentence serves a purpose: explaining the core workflow, the comparison logic, the meaning of null, read-only nature, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the main action ('POST-MORTEM a real Xahau transaction's hooks') and then layers details. While it could be slightly more concise, it remains well-organized and informative.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: a comparison of on-chain and VM directions, with 'agree' null in specific cases. It covers all behavioral aspects (rate limiting, read-only) and parameter constraints. For a tool with two simple parameters and a focused use case, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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?

The input schema has two parameters: txHash (required, with a minimal description already) and network (enum with default). The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 50% (only txHash has a description in the schema), and the tool description adds no additional guidance on how to use them (e.g., format or validation hints). Thus, the description adds little value to parameter semantics.

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's purpose: to post-mortem a Xahau transaction's hooks by fetching the transaction, running each hook's bytecode through a local VM, and comparing VM results with on-chain decisions. It uses specific verbs ('POST-MORTEM', 'fetch', 'run', 'compare') and explicitly distinguishes itself by describing its unique functionality. None of the sibling tools have similar descriptions, so differentiation is inherent.

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 explains what the tool answers ('why did these hooks accept/rollback, and would the VM agree?') and provides context on when it is appropriate: for post-mortem analysis of hooks execution. It also mentions limitations (VM run is best-effort, on-chain is authoritative) and notes that 'agree' is null in degraded cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the domain is narrow enough that this is acceptable.

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