hub_rules

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the append-only nature, the dated/attributed heading requirement, and the destructive consequence of rewriting (destroys the record hub_audit needs to quote). This is thorough and sets clear expectations.

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. The subsequent sentences about HUBD.md and append safety are relevant and non-redundant, each earning its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operations and constraints well. It explains what appending does and why rewriting is bad, but doesn't explicitly state what reading returns, which is inferable but not directly specified.

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 already describes both parameters well (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'append' must be one line and that 'by' corresponds to the attributed heading, reinforcing the append format beyond the schema's brief notes.

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's purpose: read or append an amendment to the team constitution (AGENTS.md). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing this is the rules file where user-set rules live, contrasting with generated HUBD.md for hubd mechanics.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('read it, or append an amendment') and provides a key constraint (never rewrite existing lines). It references hub_audit to explain the importance of the append-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other purposes, keeping it just short of a 5.

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