hub_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a subtle behavioral nuance: a card can appear fresh while its digest is stale, represented by digestStale with daysBehind and lastJournal. Framing it as a 'snapshot' implies a read-only, point-in-time view. While it doesn't explicitly discuss side effects or authentication, it offers meaningful context beyond a bare description.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the primary function, explains a key output nuance, then finishes with usage guidance. Each sentence contributes distinct value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the response contents (digest, last sync, open-task count, journal entries) and even the digestStale field shape. It covers usage context and alternatives, making it functionally complete. A more detailed return-type spec would be nice, but it is adequately complete for an orienting snapshot tool.

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 (full and staleDays) with 100% coverage, including the trimming behavior and default stale threshold. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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: it provides a 'Snapshot of every project at once' with digest, sync time, open-task count, and recent journal entries. It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from hub_brief and hub_get, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 'Best for orienting at the start of a session' and points users to hub_brief for deadline-sorted lists and hub_get for in-depth project views. This provides both the ideal use case and clear alternatives.

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