Get hook taxonomy

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's extra value is the claim that it returns a bounded list 'without rerunning analysis' — a meaningful cost/behavior trait. It stops short of describing row contents or ordering, so not a 5.

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 short sentences: what it does, when to use it versus siblings, and what it returns. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does give a return characterization ('bounded taxonomy list'), which is the main thing needed for a read-only list tool. A hint about row fields or default ordering would close the small remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only re-states that results can be restricted to a channel or hook, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema — 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 and resource ('Read saved hook-classification rows') plus the scope modifiers (channel or hook). It is immediately distinguishable from classify_hook (which runs classification) and get_facet_taxonomy (which returns labels).

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 names three alternatives with the condition selecting each: get_facet_taxonomy for allowed labels, classify_hook to run the classifier, analyze_self_channel for own-channel trends. The tool's own role ('inspect prior classifier results') is stated positively as well.

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