team_time_agent_hooks_config

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that the local socket path contains no credential, but it does not describe the returned configuration structure or any runtime constraints beyond that security note.

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 short and front-loads the return value before adding the credential note and setup steps. Every sentence contributes, though the setup instructions could be tighter or more explicitly framed as usage guidance.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose and immediate follow-up actions. It could do slightly more to explain what the returned hook configuration contains, but the core information is present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics carry baseline credit. The description does not need to explain input arguments, and the empty schema is consistent with that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('shared Codex hook configuration for this installation'), so the agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to offer hook configuration, making the purpose still clear.

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 gives post-retrieval instructions ('Merge hooks with existing config', 'enable TEAM_TIME_COORDINATION_ENABLED=1', 'review/trust the exact hooks'), which implies a setup/configuration use case. However, it does not state when to call this tool versus alternatives such as team_time_bootstrap or team_time_workflow.

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