read_hooks

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

The description mentions the internal function 'hook.GetTable' and that it returns a mapping, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations beyond title, the description fails to fully inform the agent about safe and expected usage.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes value.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and return format. However, it could be more robust by mentioning error conditions or data format details to fully complete the context.

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 indicates the 'event' parameter can be used for filtering, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has no description). However, it does not specify valid values, format, or optionality, leaving gaps. Given 0% schema coverage, this is moderate compensation.

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 reads registered hooks and returns a mapping from event to identifiers, indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_entities' or 'read_convars', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description lacks explicit context for selecting this tool among many read-type siblings.

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