hub_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals valuable behavioral details: the tool selects a single task, excludes tasks with open dependencies, and can signal whether the action is the owner's or an agent's. It does not detail output structure or potential side effects, but for a decision tool, this is substantive context.

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 tight three-sentence paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds context—why it's not a list, eligibility rules, and output nuance—without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's core decision logic and behavioral nuances, but lacks crucial technical details: how the optional parameters affect the selection and what the exact output format is. Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions make it only partially complete for effective invocation.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the 'project' and 'assignee' parameters. While the names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their role (e.g., filtering the decision), leaving a clear gap in the tool's usage.

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 identifies the single next task ('The ONE task to do now') and explains why it was chosen. It explicitly distinguishes from list-based approaches, helping differentiate from sibling list tools like hub_task_list and 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 implies usage context: use this when you need to decide what to do next, not when you want a list. It mentions ineligibility criteria (open dependencies) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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