hop_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (path, branch, commit, dirty status) and imposes an unusual output obligation: always display the hints from the response. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. A 5 would require more on errors or repo-state preconditions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the usage recommendation and the IMPORTANT output instruction front-loaded. Slightly wordy in the alternative list but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the definition is complete: it explains what is returned, how to call it, and the mandatory hint-display behavior. It stops short of describing failure modes or repository prerequisites.

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 100%, so the schema already documents repoPath fully, including the default-to-cwd behavior. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (hops / git worktrees), and explicitly says to prefer it over the sibling command 'git worktree list'. An agent can distinguish it from hop_to, hop_start, etc. without opening any 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 a clear when-to-use signal ('Use this instead of "git worktree list"') and names the alternatives the user should consider afterward (hop to, hop open, hop start). It does not, however, state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a repo), so it falls just short of a 5.

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