cls_install_hooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, outputs text only, writes no files, makes no network calls, and has no side effects. It also explains that the generated scripts will make outbound HTTPS calls when installed. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 structured with safety disclaimer first, then purpose, then manual installation instruction. It is about four sentences long, which is efficient for the information conveyed. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains that the output is text (shell scripts) and describes the post-installation behavior. It covers prerequisites and side effects. Missing error conditions, but overall complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

All three parameters (instance_id, repo_path, hooks) have descriptions in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the output is shell scripts and mentions running once per repository, but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 generates ready-to-paste shell scripts for git post-commit hooks and/or GitHub Actions steps. It distinguishes itself as a read-only operation that outputs text, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cls_ingest.

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 context that the output must be manually copied and installed, that it runs once per repository, and that no auth is required (only instance_id). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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