hub_agenda

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It describes what the output contains (agent work, owner buttons, blocked items, overdue/due-soon) and even details the owner-kind/role condition. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or is read-only, and it omits mention of truncation behavior (which is only in the parameter schema). Still, the description goes a long way in explaining the tool's behavior.

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: the first defines the scope, the second differentiates from siblings. It is information-dense but not overly long. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core concept, making it easy to parse. Minor deduction for the slightly run-on first sentence, but overall it is concise.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide a complete picture. It does well explaining the purpose and usage alternatives, and partially describes the output categories. However, it leaves the 'project' parameter unexplained and doesn't mention the trimming/truncation behavior (which is only in the parameter schema). Without that, the agent may not know how to use the tool fully or interpret results, so completeness is only moderate.

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 50%: the 'full' parameter has a description, but 'project' has none. The main description does not mention 'project' at all, so the agent has no idea what filtering by project does. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving a clear semantic gap.

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 what the tool does: it splits the day by who can act (agent work, owner's buttons, blocked items, overdue/due-soon). It also distinguishes itself from hub_brief and hub_inbox by explicitly stating the different question it answers, making the purpose very specific and well-differentiated.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it names alternative tools (hub_brief, hub_inbox) and explains when this tool is appropriate vs. when it is not. The description also lists the specific categories of work it focuses on, giving the agent clear decision criteria for selection.

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