git_setup_hooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set up' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not state whether existing hooks are overwritten, whether a Git repository must already be initialized, or what side effects occur. The presence of an api_key parameter for authentication is also left unexplained.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, and every word contributes to the overall meaning.

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 mutating tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., an initialized Git repository), behavior on existing hooks, and the role of api_key. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters and the description does not need to repeat them. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema provides enough detail (including the enum for 'tool' and examples for 'hooks') to reach the baseline.

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 ('Set up') and identifies the resource ('Git hooks') along with the purpose ('code quality enforcement'). This makes the tool's core function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like commit_setup_husky or git_generate_templates, so it stops short of 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools such as commit_setup_husky that also configure hooks, but no mention of them or any exclusion criteria is made. The phrase 'for code quality enforcement' hints at a use case, but there is no actionable context.

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