HooksMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Format the source code' implies a mutation operation that modifies code, but it doesn't specify whether this is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 with zero waste—'Format the source code' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word contributes to the core purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (implied mutation with no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'formatting' entails, what standards are applied, or what the return value might be (e.g., formatted code, success status). For a tool that likely modifies source code, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't contradict or omit any parameter information.

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 'Format the source code' states a clear verb ('Format') and resource ('source code'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_format' or 'lint_fix'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what formatting entails or how it differs from related operations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_format' (which might verify formatting) or 'lint_fix' (which might fix linting issues). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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