hookmark_frontmost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: bringing the app to the foreground, creating a bookmark, and returning a URL. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if the app is not running or has no active document.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific instructions and examples. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the return value usage, and the third clarifies parameter formatting. 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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or edge cases, such as what happens if the app is not installed or has no frontmost document.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning the app name format and the markdown option's purpose, but does not provide additional syntax or usage details for parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'Brings', 'creates') and resources ('hook:// URL', 'active document or window', 'Hookmark bookmark'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creating a bookmark for the frontmost application rather than cloning, connecting, listing, removing, or searching existing bookmarks.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to get a hook:// URL for the active item in a specified macOS app, which can then be used with hookmark_connect. It mentions the app name format requirement but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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