nexo_hook_runs

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 correctly identifies the tool as a read operation ('List...') and references the data source, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is truthful but not richly informative.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds context without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and data source but lacks an explicit statement about the output format (e.g., health summary fields). Since there is no output schema, a brief hint about return structure would improve completeness. However, the parameter descriptions for 'summary_only' partially compensate.

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 5 parameters with 100% coverage of descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states 'List recent hook lifecycle runs and per-hook health summary,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on hooks and explains the internal data source and use case.

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 when to use the tool ('answer is the hook pipeline healthy?') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling list contains no similar hook-specific tool, this is adequate.

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