ddflow_hooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hook's behavior (refuses commits on uncovered paths) and clarifies the nuance between installation status and actual enforcement. However, it doesn't describe side effects of install/uninstall (e.g., whether they modify files, require permissions, or are reversible), which would be valuable given no annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences that pack essential information. It front-loads the core purpose (inspect/install the hook), explains its uniqueness, and clarifies the critical status nuance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 is quite complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the key behavioral nuance (status vs enforcement), and the action options. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on what install/uninstall do in terms of side effects or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 description is 100% covered (the action parameter is fully described with its options). The description adds value by explaining what 'status' reports (installation AND policy effectiveness) and implying install/uninstall actions, going beyond the bare schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaningful context about the action's semantics, justifying a 4.

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 purpose: inspect or install an enforcement git hook that blocks commits touching paths not covered by a live lease. It uses specific verbs ('inspect', 'install') and a specific resource ('enforcement git hook'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's the one layer not depending on agent agreement—a unique function among the 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 explains when to use it: 'status' reports installation and whether the policy blocks, which is useful context. It implicitly suggests using install when a block policy exists but no hook is installed. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, though the description's focus on the enforcement layer makes the usage context clear.

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