setup_hooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool generates configuration and returns JSON, and the schema reveals defaults and options. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it writes files, modifies the environment, or just returns text), nor does it mention any permissions or rate limits. The description is honest but thin on behavioral traits beyond what the schema already shows.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output format. It is concise and free of filler. It could earn a 5 if it also included a brief usage hint, but as-is it is efficient and clear.

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 tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and output type. However, it doesn't explain what the generated hooks JSON contains beyond 'hook configuration', nor does it clarify whether the tool writes files or returns content. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, this is adequate but not complete.

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 five parameters. The description adds the high-level purpose ('cognitive offloading') and output format, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('hook configuration for cognitive offloading'), and specifies the output format ('ready-to-use hooks JSON'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all memory operations, by being the only tool about hook configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or contrast itself, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 context: it is for setting up hooks for Claude Code or Cursor, and the 'cognitive offloading' phrase suggests when to use it. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The client parameter gives some context, but there is no direct guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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