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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs linting with automatic fixes, but not all errors are fixable. However, it lacks details on what types of errors are fixable, potential side effects (e.g., code modifications), or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important limitation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient.

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 (a mutation tool that modifies code), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic action and a key limitation but lacks details on what gets fixed, how fixes are applied, or what the output looks like, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly.

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, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to explain.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lint the source code, fixing errors and warnings which it can fix.' It specifies the verb (lint with fixing) and resource (source code). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lint' or 'check_format', which likely perform similar but distinct functions.

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 implies usage by stating 'Not all errors can be fixed automatically,' suggesting this tool should be used when automatic fixes are desired but with limitations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lint' (which might only report issues) or 'format' (which might handle style fixes), leaving some ambiguity.

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