hub_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (open tasks, journal, stale cards, active claims) and parameters (hours, staleDays) but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'brief' but not explicit.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists included elements. It is concise but could be improved with bullet points or clearer structure for scanning.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main components. However, it omits details like pagination, truncation limits, and scope (e.g., user-specific vs. team-wide). Adequate for a summary brief.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'journal since N hours' and 'stale cards' which correspond to parameters hours and staleDays, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. No new semantics provided.

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 tool provides a 'morning brief across all projects' with specific components: open tasks (deadlines first), journal entries, stale cards, and active claims. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hub_task_list (which is more detailed) and hub_report (which may be broader).

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 use for a consolidated daily overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like hub_task_list or hub_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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