hub_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses subtle behavioral details: the distinction between stale and staleDigests (misleading kind), broadcast roles being flagged as fanout instead of depth (per-reader cursors), and the truncation behavior with the `truncated` field. This goes beyond basic read-only and explains edge cases.

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 long run-on sentence with multiple semicolons, making it hard to parse. It is not well-structured or front-loaded; the many components could be bulleted for readability. Though every clause contains useful info, the format undermines conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return content. It lists all major components and covers truncation details and special cases. It could mention permissions or error handling, but for a read-only brief it is fairly complete.

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% and each parameter already has a descriptive explanation ('return everything, uncapped', 'journal window, default 48', etc.). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 its specific contents (open tasks, stale cards, active claims, queue depth, buttons rollup). This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like hub_report or hub_agenda.

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 provides clear context that this is for a morning overview across all projects, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not name sibling tools but the scope is well-defined, so the agent can infer when to use it.

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