Commands this checkout wires to agent events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Shows' and details the output, clearly implying a read-only inspection that does not execute hooks. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no commands are run or that no modifications occur, leaving a slight ambiguity.

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 an efficient two-sentence structure that front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the source (settings files), the output (command, trigger, script location status), and the optional input (via schema). It lacks an explicit read-only statement but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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 single 'dir' parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with defaults and meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it shows hook commands declared in the checkout's settings files, including the command, trigger, and script location. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that inspect MCP servers, summaries, instruction files, and agent extensions.

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 when one wants to inspect configured hook commands, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of sibling tools or scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate.

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