hub_kanban

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents and flags, and explicitly states it is read-only ('the same view the read-only web kanban renders'). However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key output details. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly improved by starting with an action verb (e.g., 'Retrieve the kanban board view...').

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 has no input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: task categories and flags. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the data provided, though a bit more structure detail could improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter details (none needed), but it explains the output structure, which is valuable. According to guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

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 returns a view of open tasks split into queued and in-progress, plus done-in-the-last-day and recent journal. It distinguishes itself by noting it replicates the read-only web kanban view, differentiating from siblings like hub_task_list and hub_card_set.

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?

Usage context is implied by describing the output as a board view and comparing to the web kanban, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. 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.