inspect_hook_map

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes what the tool returns and that it maps all hooks, but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or permissions needed. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action ('Map ALL hooks'), followed by return details and purpose. No redundant information, every sentence adds 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 parameter and no output schema, description adequately explains input (path) and output fields (callback, file, line). Could benefit from an example but is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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% with a single 'path' parameter described in schema. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the plugin root'. Baseline of 3 applies as schema already documents parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Map' and resource 'ALL hooks registered by a WPZylos plugin', and specifies return fields (callback, file, line). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'validate_hook_usage' by focusing on complete mapping for debugging.

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?

States 'Critical for debugging hook issues' which implies usage context, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like 'validate_hook_usage' or 'inspect_conventions'. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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