hub_lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only, never files anything,' and describes the structure of findings (enforcement status and local rule quote). It also hints at default truncation via context. This is solid, but it does not cover all possible edge cases or error scenarios, so it is not a 5.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences, with the key purpose stated first. The opening phrase is poetic but communicates the core value proposition. It earns a 4 for being reasonably efficient and front-loaded, though it could be tightened by removing the metaphorical opening.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of outlining what the tool does, what findings look like, and its side-effect-free nature. It misses a few details like return format or how to interpret the 'strict/opt-in' distinction, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (full and projects), so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema gives; it only mentions read-only behavior, which is orthogonal. Therefore, 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 identifies the tool as a linter for hub rules, with specific verbs like 'reports' and concrete examples of what it checks (e.g., money bets without dates, human-owned tasks without prep). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the gap between enforced and merely documented rules. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, which keeps it one step below a perfect score.

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 usage: run this to check rule enforcement and get findings. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. The context signals include many sibling tools, but the description does not leverage them to guide tool selection.

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