setup_hooks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions output (installation status) and side effect (installs hooks unless dry_run=True). However, it does not detail file system changes, permissions, or reversibility.

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 reasonably concise with a hint, bullet list, and emoji indicators. It front-loads the purpose but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Unified hooks setup' repeated).

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits details on 'hooks' array, 'patterns' string, 'config_path', and 'install' parameter behavior. Output is vaguely described.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only explains 'action' (git/patterns) and mentions 'dry_run'. The other four parameters (hooks, patterns, config_path, install) are not described, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 it installs automation hooks and categorizes into git hooks and pattern triggers via action parameter. It distinguishes between two main use cases but does not differentiate from sibling tools like git_tools or automation.

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 usage via action parameter values ('git' vs 'patterns') but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools. No alternatives are mentioned.

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