hub_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it reveals deterministic scoring logic (term coverage, line location, recency), discloses that every hit carries a date-as-of and a stale flag, and even names the failure mode of stale facts. This goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then contrasting alternatives, then detailing ranking and output. Every sentence contributes essential information with no waste, making it well-structured and efficiently sized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return semantics (ranked hits with dates and stale flags) and covers purpose, alternatives, and scoring. For a moderately complex tool with a good input schema, this description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (full, limit, staleDays), and the description adds semantic context for staleDays by explaining the stale flag and date-as-of concept. It does not elaborate on query or limit, but the schema already handles those, so the description provides meaningful additional value without redundancy.

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: 'What do we know about X — ranked across project cards, their sections, decisions, the journal and tasks.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with hub_search's flat exact-substring list and hub_get's everything-about-one-project, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use alternatives: 'instead of hub_search's flat exact-substring list or hub_get's everything-about-one-project.' This implies the tool is for ranked, cross-source recall and directly names the alternatives, satisfying the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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