List active hooks installed via this MCP

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the backing store (getgenv().__mcp_hooks), warns hooks are global and persistent, notes it requires an active client, and names is-function-hooked for verification. Cost and produce-class are minor boilerplate but the underlying-mechanism disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Purpose and the audit-before-restore workflow are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the entry-field enumeration is informative. The trailing metadata block repeats annotation-derived facts ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only') and the schema signature, adding minor redundancy but staying structured and skimmable.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each entry contains (key, kind, target, metamethod name, original type) and the storage source, so an agent knows what it will receive. Requires/produces/verify fields round it out; nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents threadContext. The description only restates the signature ({ threadContext: number? }) without adding format or default semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List every function/metamethod hook installed') and names the exact origin tools (hook-function / hook-metamethod). An agent can distinguish it from restore-hook and is-function-hooked without opening the 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to audit what you've hooked before restoring', which ties the tool to a concrete workflow and names restore-hook as the follow-up. It also justifies the need ('hooks are global and persistent') but does not state an explicit when-not or list alternative audit tools.

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