hub_onboarding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavioral context: the content topics, that short mode is under 600 words and lists full-manual sections, that full mode is about 4000 words, and that it mirrors HUBD.md. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, but for an orientation manual that is a minor omission.

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 what the tool contains, then tells the agent when to call it, then explains the mode differences. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the length is appropriate for the amount of onboarding context being conveyed.

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 one-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the orientation covers, when to call it, what each mode returns in terms of length and content, and how it relates to HUBD.md. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the enum values: short mode is under 600 words and lists the sections of the full manual; full mode is the whole manual (~4000 words) and matches HUBD.md. This goes well beyond the schema's 'default short' note.

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 states a precise function: orientation for a first-time agent, covering channel selection, the author rule, session ritual, and compaction recovery. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like hub_graph, hub_claim, or hub_task_add by framing it as the onboarding manual rather than an operational action.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this FIRST the first time you connect.' The mode guidance also tells the agent which variant to choose. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to call it or naming alternative onboarding tools, but the first-time-only framing is clear.

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