hub_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'shared journal' but omits critical details like persistence, sync implications, permissions, and the private/local routing behavior. The agent is left unaware of important side effects beyond the basic append action.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and scannable.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the return value, how to use the private parameter, or the meaning of required fields, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is low (40%), and the description only echoes the enum values (done/broken/blocked) already present in the schema. It adds no clarity for the required parameters (project, agent, text) or the private flag's nuanced routing behavior, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Append') and the resource ('session report to the shared journal'), and specifies the content categories (done/broken/blocked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hub_card_set or hub_section_add, which handle different data forms.

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 for logging session outcomes but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives or clarify when to choose hub_report over other write tools, such as hub_task_add or hub_queue_send.

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