ssh_hooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: toggling persists and affects later operations, no immediate remote action, and the need for hook name for enable/disable. It does not contradict any annotations (none present). Minor gap: does not mention permissions or side effects, but adequate for a simple config tool.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then details each action. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully explains all actions, behavior, and persistence. An agent can correctly select and invoke the tool based on this description alone.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds behavioral context for each action (e.g., 'list shows each hook with its enabled state') but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'manages' and the resource 'automation hooks that fire around SSH operations'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hook management, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (for managing hooks) and explains the context of each action (list, enable, disable, status). It explicitly states 'no immediate remote action' to clarify scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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