Dibs (Hive Commons)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the authorization model, which is the most important trait for this tool. It does not cover failure behavior (what happens when the caller is unauthorized or the id is unknown) or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the access rule. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 explained, and the access model is covered. The remaining gap is error/unauthorized behavior, which an agent would benefit from knowing given the described permission rules.

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 parameter ('id') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as the Dibs idea id. The description adds no format, example, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch an idea') and adds the payload scope ('including match and settlement state'), which tells the agent this is a rich single-entity read rather than a summary. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling list_my_ideas, list_repos, and submit_idea.

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 clearly states the access conditions: public ideas need no auth, private ideas require being the author or the owner of a repo with a pending/accepted offer. That is useful routing context, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives (e.g., list_my_ideas for enumeration), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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 are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the operation is scoped to the authenticated caller, implying an auth requirement, and names the returned lifecycle phase/status. However, it says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering, which matters for a list endpoint.

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, tight sentence with the scope ('authenticated caller's') and the payload ('lifecycle phase/status') front-loaded. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required from the description, and with zero parameters the input side is trivially complete. The scoping and content hints are sufficient, though the absence of annotations leaves a minor gap around ordering/paging that the description doesn't address.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-level baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the caller's Dibs ideas) with clear scope ('authenticated caller's'), and adds the returned lifecycle phase/status. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_idea or list_repos, but the plural/list form versus singular get is strongly implied.

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 'authenticated caller's' scoping implies this is the tool for enumerating your own ideas rather than fetching a specific one, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., 'use get_idea for a single idea'). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, scope (all repos vs. user-specific), or authentication. An output schema exists, which covers return values, but the invocation-side behavior is entirely undocumented.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool, though 'known to Dibs' is marginally ornamental rather than informative.

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 trivial zero-param list call, the description is minimally sufficient and the output schema covers the return shape. It stops short of stating scope or pagination behavior, which would be cheap to add and would remove the remaining ambiguity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description neither misleads nor needs to compensate for any schema 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (registered repository venues), which is unambiguous against the idea-centric siblings (get_idea, list_my_ideas, submit_idea). The phrase 'known to Dibs' names the owning system, though it is slightly jargon-heavy. No explicit sibling differentiation is given, but none is needed given the disjoint domains.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the tool's applicability purely from the name. This matches the 'no guidance' tier.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (Bearer token) and the ownership semantics of the created entity, which an agent cannot see in the schema. However, it says nothing about duplicate handling, validation failures, or side effects of this mutation, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 the operation and auth requirement front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in the text is redundant or padding.

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 explained, and all three parameters are covered by the schema. For an unannotated mutation tool, though, the description could say more about failure modes or idempotency; it is adequate but not complete.

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 title, description, and tags are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, length, or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a Dibs idea") plus scope ("owned by the authenticated caller"), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_idea, list_my_ideas, and list_repos. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it misses the top mark.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling list/get tools, nor any prerequisites beyond the auth header. The auth line is a requirement, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer context entirely.

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