Hive Cdn

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

The description lists return fields (body, content type, ETag, age, freshness) and cost details, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., key not found), required permissions, or rate limits. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden but is only partially transparent.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, return fields, and cost/constraint. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values adequately. It also includes cost and the 'Inbound only' constraint. Missing details like error responses or status codes, but overall sufficient for a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of 'if_none_match' behavior despite the schema covering it).

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 'Read a cached object by key' which clearly identifies the action (read) and resource (cached object by key). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools (cdn_cache_put writes, cdn_purge deletes) but does not explicitly note the difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use cdn_cache_put or cdn_purge). The cost and 'Inbound only' constraint provide some usage context but no explicit when-to/when-not-to instructions.

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 present, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions body formats (string, JSON, base64) and cache_control defaults, but does not mention rate limits, auth, size limits, or other constraints. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and 4 parameters, description covers key and body formats, mentions cache_control. Missing default for content_type (schema says application/octet-stream) and response info, but sufficient for a put operation without output schema.

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 coverage is 75%. Description adds minimal value beyond schema: it restates body formats and prompts cache_control. Does not clarify key or content_type beyond schema defaults.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Store' and resource 'object under a key', along with optional parameters like max-age. Differentiates from sibling tools (get, purge) by being a write operation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. 'Tier 0, free for now' hints at cost but not usage context. Implied by name but not explicit.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency and cost (free, Tier 0) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the purge itself.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and additional context is efficiently provided.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and idempotency. Lacks parameter detail but is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 'key' with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'by key' but does not explain what a key is, its format, or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Purge a single cache entry by key', specifying the verb, resource, and method of identification. Distinguishes from sibling tools (get/put) by focusing on purge.

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?

Provides context: 'Tier 0, free. Idempotent — returns ok regardless of whether the key was present.' This tells when it's safe to use and its effect, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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