hub_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only status/traffic probe and adds an interpretive claim about infrastructure failure vs app-level silence. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or what 'how much traffic' means in the response, but a status check implies no mutation.

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 with no filler. The core status/traffic check is front-loaded, and the when-to-call guidance is packed into the second sentence.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and how to interpret the result at a high level. It stops short of specifying response format or traffic units, but that is not critical for selecting and invoking the 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has nothing to document; schema coverage is effectively complete. The absence of parameter details is not a gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('check'), identifies the exact resource ('super-log hub'), and clarifies scope by distinguishing 'running' from 'traffic seen'. The troubleshooting phrase differentiates it from log-querying siblings like tail_logs and search_logs, though it doesn't name them.

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 an explicit invocation trigger: 'Call this first when logs seem missing' and explains the diagnostic value: it distinguishes the bench being down from the app logging nothing. It doesn't list when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but for a zero-parameter status probe the trigger is sufficiently concrete.

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