Scan hook surfaces

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: cost=high, the active-client requirement, 'Produces: bounded-candidates', and a verification path via is-function-hooked, plus a failure fallback to tool-schema. It does not explain the shape of the capability map, but adds meaningful behavioral signal.

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 purpose, then structured metadata fields that are quick to scan. There is minor redundancy between 'idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only', and the readOnlyHint annotation, but overall it is dense and earns its 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 read-only scan with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, cost, verification, and a failure fallback. The only gap is the exact structure of the returned capability map, which an agent would have to discover at call time.

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?

With a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents threadContext fully. The description restates the signature as '{ threadContext: number? }' without adding format or default nuance beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check availability of common exploit/debug hook APIs') plus the output ('return capability map'), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling scanners like scan-connections-by-source or list-hooks. It stops short of naming a competing alternative to choose between, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

It gives operational context: 'Phase: observe; cost=high' and the prerequisite 'Requires: active-client', plus 'Verify with: is-function-hooked' as a follow-up. There is no explicit when-not or list of alternatives, but the context is clear enough to route the agent.

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