hub_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nuanced behavior, such as broadcast roles being 'flagged fanout instead of a depth' and referencing 'HUB/owner-roles.json' for pending items. This goes beyond a surface-level summary and informs the agent of special cases, though it does not explicitly state side effects (likely read-only).

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, dense sentence punctuated with parentheticals and a colon-separated list. Despite its length, every clause contributes distinct information (e.g., fanout flagging, owner-roles reference) and the key purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat run-on but remains efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all major sections the brief will contain and offers edge-case clarifications (broadcast roles, per-reader cursors, human-owner queue). It does not describe the exact output format, but the level of detail is high and should allow an agent to understand the tool's scope and behavior.

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?

The input schema already explains both parameters ('hours' and 'staleDays') with full coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does use 'N hours' and 'stale cards' contextually, but these are already defined in the schema. Thus the description adds minimal meaning beyond what is structured, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 produces a 'Morning brief across all projects' and enumerates the specific components it includes (open tasks, journal, stale cards, active claims, per-role queue depth, buttons rollup). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hub_kanban (board view) or hub_report (reporting) by specifying its aggregate, cross-project summary nature.

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 a use case: getting a comprehensive morning overview of tasks, queues, and claims. It provides clear context by listing what is covered, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools for specific needs. No exclusions are given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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