hub_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the exact lookup priority (.hubd marker, sync path, folder name guess), the guessed:true flag, the refusal to silently trust name coincidences, and the null-with-hint failure mode. This goes beyond a generic 'resolves project' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core action and usage, then uses a compact bullet-style list for resolution order and return fields. Every sentence/segment adds essential information—no filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain both behavior and return shape. It enumerates the return fields ({project, via, root, guessed, digest, openTasks, activeClaims}) and covers the failure case. The combination of when, how, and what happens makes the tool fully usable without external references.

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 100% and the cwd parameter already has a thorough explanation ('Absolute path to YOUR OWN current working directory — this cannot be inferred...'). The description only echoes this by saying 'when you already know your cwd,' adding no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Auto-resolve') and clearly identifies the resource (hub project from the current working directory). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools hub_status/hub_get, stating this is for when you already know your cwd, making the purpose distinct.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('call this at session start instead of hub_status/hub_get when you already know your cwd') and names the alternative tools. The resolution-order explanation also frames when the fallback naming heuristic applies, giving the agent practical decision rules.

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