acc_list_hubs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful context beyond annotations: results depend on current credentials, and it clarifies the accountId format (without 'b.'), which is a common pitfall. It does not mention pagination or potential errors, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately clarifying key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a critical detail about the accountId format. It also implies authentication via 'current credentials,' which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain inputs, but it does provide relevant output context (account ids, data region), which is beneficial.

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 lists ACC/BIM 360 hubs (accounts) visible to current credentials, including account IDs and data region. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like acc_list_projects, and the accountId detail adds precision.

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 a clear use case by noting that the accountId (without 'b.') is what project-administration tools need, guiding users to invoke this tool as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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