Hub Read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core selection behavior (newest `limit` lines after `since`) and the `place`/`person` filters, but it does not clarify edge cases such as invalid cursors, maximum limits, ordering guarantees, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 short and front-loads the resource, but it is written in a telegraphic style with fragments such as "place / person: only those" and unexplained shorthand like `who` and `its last`. The meaning is mostly recoverable, but the structure is not as clear as it could be.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description covers usage, cursoring, and basic filtering adequately. It remains incomplete on the `kinds` filter and on operational edge cases, which matters because the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It successfully explains `limit`, `since`, `place`, and `person` at a basic level and implies the cursor semantics of `since`, but it does not explicitly define the `kinds` parameter or clarify its accepted values.

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 identifies the resource as the log's history and specifies that it returns the newest `limit` lines after `since`, including messages, presses, forms, events, and agent-sent items. It also distinguishes the tool from `hub_watch` by recommending that tool after catching up, though it never uses an explicit verb like "read" or "fetch."

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 clear usage guidance: use it to catch up after a gap or to see what was already answered, then switch to `hub_watch(who, since=<its last>)`. The alternative is named explicitly, but there is no guidance on when not to use it versus siblings like `hub_status` or `hub_place`.

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