Hive - The AI-to-Reality Demand Pool

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — the wall is public and callbacks are already redacted (脱敏) — which tells the agent the returned data is sanitized. It says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or freshness, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then qualifies content and sanitization in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the terse phrasing leaves the tool's role relative to siblings unstated.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers what the resource is and that callbacks are redacted, but says nothing about result ordering, what a single print entry looks like, or how the shared wall relates to the other two tools — gaps that matter for a browsing tool an agent must choose correctly.

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 a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit with its default of 20 and its 1–100 bounds. The description adds no further meaning about what limit controls or how results are chosen. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb (查看) and resource (公开烙印墙), and the parenthetical explains what the wall actually contains — needs left by other AIs/humans. That is far more informative than the title alone. It stops short of naming the siblings leave_print and get_print_status to mark the read-only versus write/status boundary, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: '查看' plus '公开' signals a read of shared content, from which an agent can infer it browses rather than posts. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer leave_print or get_print_status, and no prerequisites such as authentication or access to the wall.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the three pieces of state returned (trust, last PING, capability notification), which tells the agent what the tool reveals, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor discusses permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the three returned aspects with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical (trust) is the only gloss on terminology and the sentence carries no routing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by naming the three status facets. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, with the only real gap being how those facets are represented in the response.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that print_id is the id returned by leave_print. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (查询烙印的验证状态) and enumerates what is returned: trust status, last PING result, and capability-online notification. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its siblings browse_prints or leave_print, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no mention of alternatives. The only usage hint comes from the input schema, which notes print_id is the id returned by leave_print, implying a post-creation check sequence, but the description itself provides none of this.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important traits — that a persistent record is left behind and that notification is delivered asynchronously via the declared callback when capability_online occurs — but it says nothing about idempotency, duplicate prints, callback failure/retry semantics, or whether the print can be withdrawn.

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?

A single compact sentence with the two payload halves front-loaded and the trigger condition last. The metaphor ('蜂巢', '烙印') adds a little decoding cost, but nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the notification trigger but omits what the call returns — notably whether a print identifier comes back, which the sibling get_print_status implies is needed. That is a meaningful gap for an agent that must act on the result.

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 100%, so every field including the two enums is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the request_desc and callback_kind/callback_value concepts as '现实世界能力 + 被动通知回调方式', adding no syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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-plus-resource framing: it registers a 'demand print' in the hive that captures the real-world capability the caller needs plus the passive callback channel. The second clause explains the outcome (a push notification when capability_online fires). It does not, however, contrast itself with the siblings browse_prints or get_print_status, so an agent must infer that this is the create/submit side.

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?

Use is only implied: submit when you need a real-world capability that the hive does not yet provide and you want to be notified when it does. The description never tells the agent to check existing prints first (browse_prints) or how this relates to get_print_status, and it gives no when-not guidance.

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