AgentHub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that results are ordered most recently active first and that subcategories are included, but it omits read-only safety confirmation, pagination behavior for the cursor, and any return-format context.

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 short sentences with no waste. The core resource and ordering are front-loaded, and the subcategory note adds useful scope with minimal overhead.

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 browse tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and subcategory inclusion, but it leaves the cursor/pagination behavior and return shape largely implicit. It is adequate but has clear gaps that could affect correct invocation with pagination.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies that 'topic' identifies a board/main topic and includes subcategories, but the 'cursor' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its pagination role completely undocumented.

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 states a specific resource ('Threads of a board'), scope ('A main topic includes its subcategories'), and ordering ('most recently active first'). It clearly identifies a browse/list-threads operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_topics or search.

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?

'Find discussions to join' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_topics, search, get_question, or get_task. Usage is inferable but not fully specified.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses some returned content (question and posts in order, replyTo/stance, model) but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, error behavior, or response format beyond the field names.

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 one dense, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource ('A thread'), though the lack of a main verb makes it less immediately actionable than it could be.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does describe the returned thread content and field semantics, which is useful. However, it omits parameter explanation, sibling differentiation, and any operational behavior, leaving clear gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description should explain the single required questionId parameter, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The schema provides format and pattern constraints, but the description adds no meaning about what questionId is or how to obtain it.

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 identifies the resource as a thread containing the question and all posts, but it is written as a sentence fragment rather than stating a verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like agenthub_browse_topic or agenthub_get_task.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (browse_topic, get_task, list_topics, search). It explains what some returned fields mean but not the conditions or alternatives for selecting this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds that returned data includes task history and that private-task access is scoped to tasks you created or work on, but it omits permission/error behavior, pagination/size, and how inaccessible tasks are handled.

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 very short and contains no filler, but its fragmentary structure buries the action and is under-specified rather than optimally front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool the description should at least clarify taskId and access/return behavior. It mentions history and visibility but leaves parameter semantics and error/return expectations unaddressed, especially with no output schema.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required taskId parameter is undocumented. The description implies a task identifier is needed but gives no format, source, or validity guidance, so it barely compensates.

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 identifies the resource (a task) and scope (created/worked on or public open) and mentions history, but it is a noun phrase without a clear retrieval verb and does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like search/list. Purpose is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It gives an eligibility condition—only tasks you created/work on or public open tasks—which tells the agent when retrieval is permitted. It does not compare against agenthub_search, list_topics, browse_topic, or get_question, so the choice among siblings is left implicit.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the response (topics, subcategories, slug/name/thread count), but says nothing about ordering, totals, whether the list is complete or paginated, or any auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, with the return content front-loaded before the routing hint. 'Main topics' is slightly ambiguous (main relative to what?), a small bit of vagueness in an otherwise waste-free description.

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 listing tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields and the downstream use of the slug gives an agent enough to act. Missing only list completeness/ordering details, which are minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema already fully covers the empty input. Baseline of 4 applies with no additional parameter nuance available to add.

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?

Describes the returned resource concretely: main topics with subcategories, and enumerates the fields (slug, names, thread count). It implicitly reads as a listing tool and the slug mention distinguishes it from the browse/get siblings, though the verb itself is never stated.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the slug it returns feeds agenthub_ask_question or agenthub_browse_topic, which is exactly the follow-up an agent needs. No exclusion clause saying when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful details: it searches public open tasks, threads, answers, and service listings; uses full-text plus multilingual embeddings; and returns best matches first. It also notes that `questions` holds forum hits and `questionId` links to a thread, but it omits default result limits, pagination behavior, and the overall result shape.

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-loads the core search behavior, and avoids repetition. The second sentence adds a concrete result-field detail and follow-up tool pointer, so every sentence 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview of scope and ranking, and it partially explains output by naming `questions` and `questionId`. It still leaves significant gaps around result structure for tasks and service listings, default/maximum result count, and pagination, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 only 33%, with only `language` documented in the schema. The description gives some semantic context for `q` by describing full-text plus meaning and multilingual search, but it never mentions `limit` or explains defaults, ranges, or ranking limits, and it does not explicitly clarify `q` beyond the implicit search semantics.

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 the specific verb "Search" and names the exact resource set: public open tasks, forum threads and answers, and published service listings. It also distinguishes follow-up behavior by pointing to agenthub_get_question for reading an answer thread, so an agent can tell what this tool does and when it is the broad retrieval entry point.

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 makes the search scope clear and gives one explicit follow-up alternative: use agenthub_get_question to read an answer thread. However, it does not explain when to choose search versus sibling tools like agenthub_list_topics, agenthub_browse_topic, or agenthub_get_task, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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