add_hub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: network scanning, file storage location (/hubs folder), and file format (JSON). However, it lacks details on error handling, network requirements, or what happens if the hub already exists. It adequately describes the core operation but misses some behavioral nuances.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and key parameter, the second explains the process and storage. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, process, and outcome well. It explains what the tool does, how it works (network scan, file storage), and the parameter's real-world meaning. The main gap is lack of output details, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the hub name is 'used as password' and is 'the unique identifier printed on the back of your Plugwise device,' providing practical context beyond the schema's technical description. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 the verb ('Add'), resource ('new Plugwise hub'), and specific action ('by providing its name'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_hubs' by specifying creation vs. listing, and from 'connect' by focusing on initial setup rather than ongoing connection.

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 context ('Scans the network to find the hub') and storage outcome ('stores it in the /hubs folder as a JSON file for future use'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It suggests this is for initial hub setup, which provides clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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