Hook recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns recipes, not that it installs or modifies anything, and even adds 'tested' and 'work on Windows and macOS' context. This is transparent for a zero-parameter read-like 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and compactly lists the three recipe types. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the number of recipes, their purpose, and platform compatibility. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand what it will get back.

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 is empty and there are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds useful context about the returned content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('three tested settings.json hook recipes'), and names the exact recipes included. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but its resource and content are specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from audit_claude_setup and scaffold_agent.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when settings.json hook recipes are needed. The description does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, though the sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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