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 states the tool runs a test, implying execution and potential side effects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs actions.

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. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a test-running tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and how it differs from siblings. For a tool that likely involves execution, this minimal description is inadequate for proper agent usage.

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 parameters 'TEST_PATH' and 'TEST_NAME' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Run a specific test by name' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('a specific test'), but it's vague about what 'test' refers to and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'test_file' or 'all_tests'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_file' or 'all_tests'. The description implies it runs a single test by name, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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