scaffold_hook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'Offline' and generates a 'structurally valid' hook with build instructions, indicating no ledger modifications. It does not disclose return format or error handling, but these are reasonable for a scaffold generator.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and usage flow. Every word adds value ('structurally valid', 'A STARTING POINT', 'Offline'). No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose, usage sequence, and offline nature. For a simple scaffold tool with no output schema, it provides most needed context. Missing is explicit mention of output format (e.g., returns C code as string), but it's implied by 'generate ... with build instructions'.

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 description lists the archetype enum values but does not explain each intent beyond naming. Schema descriptions cover maxDrops and blockTxType, but archetype lacks a schema description. The description adds minimal extra meaning, leaving interpretation of archetypes to the agent.

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 generates a starter Xahau Hook in C for a specific intent, listing all valid archetypes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from analysis/execution tools by calling itself a 'STARTING POINT'. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'starter Hook' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using the scaffold as a starting point, then verifying with analyze_hook/execute_hook before deploying. It implies when to use (first step in hook creation) and mentions the offline nature, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or provide alternatives.

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