Hub Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the call is idempotent and it blocks until every place is connected. It omits what happens on failure, on port conflict, or whether startup requires the places file to already exist, which are meaningful gaps for a blocking startup tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its idempotency before the follow-up tools. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence mixes two distinct follow-up recommendations slightly awkwardly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the essential start behavior and next steps. The remaining gap is the uncovered port parameter and failure-mode behavior, which matters for a blocking network-startup call.

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?

There is one parameter, port, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it at all. The agent cannot tell from either source what the port governs, whether collisions matter, or when to override the default.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Start the hub') and then names the mechanism: it connects every place in the places file and waits. This clearly separates it from hub_stop, hub_status and hub_watch. It stops short of 5 only because 'places file' is domain jargon that assumes prior context.

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 routes the agent forward, naming hub_status to inspect capabilities and hub_watch to read incoming messages, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus hub_stop or a restart path, and gives no prerequisites, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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