hook_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter, yet it still adds real behavior: the hook lands in the probe's hooks table, is visible via hook_status, and is removable with unhook. It also warns that an invalid args_type spec fails immediately and that unsupported override_retval types are rejected on the spot. It does not say whether a live session/process is required before calling, which would have made this a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope statement and the hook_method contrast, and the args block is easy to scan. However, the applicability clause is repeated almost verbatim in the opening two paragraphs ('适用于原生函数、系统 API、以及「模块基址 + RVA」算出的地址' twice), which is wasted space.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers target identification, argument typing, throttling, backtracing, and return-value override behavior, plus lifecycle integration with hook_status/unhook. It stops short of explaining how captured calls are retrieved (the drain_events sibling) and leaves 'label' undocumented, so an agent still has a small inference to make.

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 the description must carry the parameters, and it does: address format (hex example), args_type syntax and failure mode, retval_type enum list, max_calls, backtrace, and the full override_retval semantics with accepted types and the empty-string default meaning. The only gap is the 'label' parameter, which appears in the schema but is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb (install hook) and resource (arbitrary address), and explicitly scopes itself as 'not limited to managed methods', which cleanly separates it from the sibling hook_method. An agent can decide between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions: native game functions, system APIs, and addresses computed as module base + RVA from static analysis. It also implicitly routes managed-method hooking to hook_method by contrasting scope and by referencing hook_method's argument semantics.

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