audit_hook

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 transparently states the evaluation criteria and the return format (PASS/NEEDS WORK with named issues). While it doesn't explicitly say it's read-only or detail side effects, the audit nature is clear and the output is described. This goes beyond a minimal 'audits a hook' statement.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, lists specific checks, and mentions the output format. Every phrase adds value; there is zero fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is checked and what the return looks like. It doesn't detail the structure of 'named issues' or provide examples, but the key information is present. Given the low complexity and the richness of the description, it is adequately 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'hook' is described as 'The hook line as it would be spoken or captioned.' The description adds behavioral context about the audit but does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb 'Audit' with a specific resource 'hook line', and enumerates exactly what checks are performed (length vs 2-second window, greeting openers, hype words vs receipts, specificity, style). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_script, which audits a full script, and get_hook_mechanics, which likely provides mechanics rather than performing an audit.

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 the tool is used to audit a hook line, which is clear context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like audit_script or get_hook_mechanics. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is only implied.

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