hub_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'shows' status, implying read-only behavior, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or data freshness. Basic transparency is present but could be richer.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Show hub status'). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has no parameters and includes an output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose. However, it does not mention any preconditions, permissions, or whether the status is live or cached, which would add completeness.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the specific status fields, confirming what the output will contain. No parameter documentation is needed beyond this.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'hub status', listing specific components (catalog size, depot health, Rack path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_catalog_card and show_patch_card, which focus on individual cards, by providing an overall status summary.

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 the tool is used to view hub status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions or exclusions. Lack of usage context reduces clarity for selection.

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