hub_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: long lists are trimmed by default, with omitted data reported in `truncated`, and the `full` flag disables this. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand output limits.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first defines the returned data, the second gives contextual usage instruction. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core payload (card, journal entries, soft-locks) and the trimming behavior. It doesn't explain return formatting, but that is not essential for a get-tool of this complexity.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the 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 what the tool does: it returns 'Everything about ONE project' including its full card, recent journal entries, and active soft-locks. The verb is implicit in the name but the resource and scope are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like hub_status (project list) and hub_search.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use after hub_status or hub_search points you at a project.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implies it is not for initial discovery.

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