generate_hook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates code but doesn't specify output format (e.g., PHP snippet, full file), whether it validates inputs, or any side effects like saving to a file. For a code-generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate WordPress action or filter hook code'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 the complexity of a code-generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated output looks like (e.g., PHP code snippet), how to use it in WordPress, or any dependencies. This leaves users guessing about the tool's full context and utility.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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: 'Generate WordPress action or filter hook code'. It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('WordPress action or filter hook code'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_php_function or generate_shortcode, which also generate code for WordPress components.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for WordPress development, or how it differs from sibling tools such as generate_php_function or generate_shortcode. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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