find_hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's read-only navigation behavior, multiple modes, and what each mode produces (list, show skeletons, rank candidates, find orphans). It does not detail return formats or edge cases, but for a navigation/search tool this is adequate.

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 compact but dense, fitting four usage modes plus a purpose statement into a few sentences. It is structured with numbered modes, making it easy to parse. Slightly long but 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 modes, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all modes, parameter relationships, and intended outcomes. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the mode descriptions imply what is returned. Sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds valuable inter-parameter semantics: hub_path and feature_name are alternative ways to select a hub, query is used with ranking_mode, and show_orphans is a standalone mode. It also explains defaults (ranking_mode defaults to both) and behavior expectations.

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 as an 'Obsidian-style feature hub navigator' that works with .md files containing wikilinks. It specifies distinct modes (no args, hub_path/feature_name, query, show_orphans), which differentiates it from sibling tools like tree, deps, 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?

It provides explicit mode-based usage: no args for listing all hubs, hub_path/feature_name for showing a hub, query for ranking, and show_orphans for finding unlinked files. It also explains intent ('prevents orphaned code and enables graph-based codebase navigation') but does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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