Project Tessera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (listing hooks and their details) and hints at configuration context, but does not disclose traits like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details in a second sentence. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple listing with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and provides configuration context, but could benefit from more behavioral transparency, such as permissions or output specifics, to be fully comprehensive.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, as there are none to document, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all registered plugin hooks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying what it shows ('which events have hooks attached and what scripts/functions will be called'). It avoids tautology by not merely repeating the tool name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('List all registered plugin hooks') and includes a configuration note ('Configure hooks in workspace.yaml under 'hooks:' section'), which implies usage for setup or verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as for managing hooks versus listing them.

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