npm_hook_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'The stored secret is redacted from the response.' This sets expectations beyond the structured metadata.

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 short sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides a key behavioral note. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 one simple parameter, strong annotations, and a clear description of the action and redaction behavior, the description is complete for this low-complexity tool. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the note about the returned secret.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description 'Hook ID (UUID from npm_hook_list)'. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get' with a resource 'webhook' and scope 'by its ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like npm_hook_list (which lists all webhooks) and mutation tools such as npm_hook_add/update/remove.

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 implies usage when you have a webhook ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided; the guidance is only implicit.

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