generate_tweet_hook

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output format (3 templates, examples, tips) and a behavioral constraint (hooks must land in line one). However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, though none are expected.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence states what it does, the second adds a critical usage tip. No wasted words.

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, description sufficiently explains returns (3 templates, examples, tips). Both parameters are covered, and the line one constraint is important context. Complete for a simple generation tool.

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%, both parameters have descriptions in schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning for topic ('to customize the examples'), which is already in schema. No additional semantic value beyond 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 tweet hook formulas for a category and returns 3 templates with examples and tips. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build_x_search_url' or 'calculate_x_engagement_rate' which serve different purposes.

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 for generating hooks but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. It provides a key tip about hooks needing to be in line one, but lacks alternative guidance or exclusion criteria.

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