get_hook_mechanics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format ('fill-in structures') and the content type returned (why each works, failure mode, suitable content type), which is transparent for a read-only get tool. It does not mention side effects, which are not expected for such a 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by a list of styles and the optional filter. Every sentence earns its place, and the list improves scannability without padding.

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 get tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what the tool returns (10 styles, each with fill-in structure, rationale, failure mode, and content fit) and how to narrow results. No additional context is needed.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 'style' with an enum and description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds only that filtering is optional ('Optionally filter to one style'), which is minimal additional value over 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's function: 'Get the 10 hook styles as fill-in structures with why each works, its failure mode, and what content type it fits.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and enumerates all ten styles, making it distinct from sibling tools like audit_hook or get_script_structure.

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 for retrieving hook mechanics and offers an optional filter ('Optionally filter to one style'), which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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