Check whether a function currently has an executor hook

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context the annotations do not, namely prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target) and cost=medium. It does not describe the return shape, leaving that partly opaque, but the prerequisites are real added value beyond the structured fields.

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 definition is compact but reads as a metadata field-block; 'Signature' duplicates the schema and 'Safety: read-only' duplicates readOnlyHint, while 'Verify with: is-function-hooked' is self-referential dead weight. The genuinely useful bits (prerequisites, cost, phase) are present but not sharply front-loaded.

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 low-complexity read-only check with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the essentials are largely present (prerequisites, phase, safety). Still, the description never states what the check returns (boolean vs structured observation), and the self-referential 'Verify with' line leaves the verification story unclear.

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 with constraints and meanings. The description's 'Signature: { functionPath: string, threadContext: number? }' merely repeats the schema without adding format or default nuance beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's body leans on mechanism ('Resolve a function and call isfunctionhooked') which essentially restates the tool name rather than stating the outcome (a boolean/observation of whether the function is currently hooked). The title clarifies, but a reader relying on the description alone gets a vague sense of purpose. It does gesture at the hooking/restoring workflow, which lightly disambiguates it from siblings.

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?

'before hooking/restoring it' implies the intended usage context relative to hook-function/restore-function, giving implied guidance. However there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and no named alternatives; 'Verify with: is-function-hooked' unhelpfully points at itself rather than a distinct verification tool.

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