simulate_hook_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it is static, offline, uses no bytecode, no ledger reads, and returns roles (strong/weak) and partial flags. Lacks explicit mention of non-mutative nature but it's implicit; still very transparent.

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 that immediately convey the core functionality and usage. Every sentence adds crucial information—no redundancy or 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?

For a static prediction tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use the alternative, and flags limitations (partial flag). No additional context is needed.

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 100% (tx described), and the description adds value by specifying minimum required fields (TransactionType + Account) and that it works without ledger read. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 explicitly states the tool statically predicts hook invocations from transaction fields without bytecode execution, clearly distinguishing it from simulate_transaction. The verb 'predict' and resource 'accounts' hooks' make the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance: use simulate_transaction for full prediction with bytecode, and notes that for some tx types a partial flag is returned. This helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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