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 action ('Run tests') but does not explain what this entails—such as whether it executes tests, returns results, modifies files, requires specific environments, or has side effects like generating reports. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to understand at a glance, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to the functional definition.

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 a tool that performs an action like running tests. It does not cover behavioral aspects such as what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or dependencies required, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'TEST_PATH' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not elaborate on parameter usage, formats, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's 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 clearly states the action ('Run tests') and target ('in a specific file or directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_specific' or 'all_tests', which might offer similar testing functionality, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'test_specific' or 'all_tests' for comparison, nor does it specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, offering only a basic functional statement without operational context.

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