hub_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the safety profile (read-only by default), the side effects of `apply` (files incident tasks and writes one report), idempotency (findings are keyed so weekly runs never duplicate), and the distinction between reported numbers and filed violations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it enumerates the specific checks, explains the rule-provenance rationale, clarifies read-only vs. apply behavior, and warns against misusing it as a dashboard. The structure front-loads the core purpose followed by details, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, the exact checks it performs, how to trigger writes, idempotency guarantees, output caveats (numbers are not violations), and the parameter semantics for the access-control field `by`. No significant gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between `by` and `apply` ('required with apply') and clarifying that `full` affects context trimming. This goes beyond the raw parameter descriptions but does not deeply elaborate every parameter, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Compare what the hub DECLARES with what actually happened, and turn each disagreement into an incident somebody owns.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by framing it as an audit/incident-creation process, not just a reporting or syncing function.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the default read-only behavior vs. the `apply` mode ('Read-only by default; `apply` files one incident task per finding'). It also states what the tool is not ('NOT a dashboard'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like `hub_report` or `hub_lint`.

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