HooksMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks formatting but doesn't reveal what 'correctly' entails, whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions or context it requires, or what happens on failure. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., mentioning code language or formatting standards) to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'formatted correctly' means, what standards or rules are applied, what the return value indicates (e.g., pass/fail, detailed errors), or how it interacts with siblings. For a code quality tool in a server with multiple similar tools, more context is needed.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 the tool's purpose as checking source code formatting correctness, which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('check') and resource ('source code'), but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'format' or 'lint' that might handle similar concerns. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'formatted correctly' means in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'format', 'lint', 'lint_fix', and 'typecheck' that might overlap in code quality checking, there's no indication of when this specific formatting check is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what distinguishes it from other tools. This leaves usage decisions unclear.

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