get_hook_log_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely states 'expand' but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data, requires special permissions, or produces output). Parameters like dryRun and outputDir hint at file creation, but this is not explained, leaving behavior ambiguous.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly too terse given the tool's complexity; a marginally longer description could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what 'expand' entails, or how parameters affect behavior. The agent lacks critical information to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. It only vaguely refers to a 'short surrounding time-window', which loosely relates to windowMs, but fails to clarify targetPackage, serial, entryId, outputDir, limits, includeCallStack, or dryRun. This forces the agent to infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 ('expand') and resource ('structured hook log entry'), and clarifies the scope ('short surrounding time-window context'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like query_hook_logs or search_hook_logs, which serve different purposes.

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 for getting context around a specific log entry, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is suggested but not clearly delineated.

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