Hive Identity

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the score range, influencing factors, and the pending backend status, which is useful context. However, it omits expected behavior for unknown DIDs, error responses, or any authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences that front-load the primary action and resource, then add secondary context (factors and availability). Every word is purposeful, 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the output range, and its availability. It lacks details on return value structure or error handling, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable. The pending status is an important caveat that is clearly stated.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'did' with a clear definition, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra detail about the parameter format, validation, or any syntax requirements beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'Hive trust score (0-100) for a DID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_attestations or verify_attestation that focus on attestations. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the purpose itself differentiates it from siblings. The 'Backend pending (Q3 2026)' note implies it is not ready for production use but does not suggest an alternative. The guidance is implied rather than 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the backend is pending (Q3 2026), a critical behavioral aspect, and mentions the return type (array of attestation metadata). However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or error handling, though the 'List' verb implies a read operation.

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 consists of three concise sentences: the purpose, the return format, and the backend status. Every clause adds essential information with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, return type, and backend availability. It lacks guidance on when to use alternatives and potential limitations like pagination, but the core information is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'did' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states 'List all attestations associated with a DID — issued, received, and expired,' which is a specific verb (List) and resource (attestations for a DID). It distinguishes from siblings by targeting attestations comprehensively, differentiating from verify_attestation (single) and get_trust_score (score).

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 usage for retrieving all attestations for a DID, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. It provides clear context but not direct guidance on alternative tools.

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 discloses a key limitation: 'Backend pending (Q3 2026)' and claims W3C conformance. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and result, the second adds conformance and status. Every word contributes 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output contents, standard conformance, and availability status. It could improve by noting that the tool may return errors until the backend is live, or by explaining how this relates to sibling tools, but overall it is reasonably 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% (the 'did' parameter is fully described in the schema). The description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a DID to its public profile' and enumerates the profile contents (display name, verification methods, service endpoints, Hive trust metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on trust scores, attestations, and verification.

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 provides clear context that this tool resolves a DID profile, which implicitly differentiates it from trust/attestation tools. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternative references, though the purpose alone is enough for basic orientation.

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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns a boolean and checks current validity, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error behavior, side effects (even though it is likely read-only), or authentication needs, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: the core action, use cases, and backend status. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, with no wasted words or 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?

For a relatively simple verification tool, the description covers the essentials: what it verifies, when it's used, and its return type. The input schema covers parameters, and the boolean return is stated. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need. Overall, it is sufficiently complete with minor gaps.

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%: both 'did' and 'attestation_hash' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds only 'by hash,' which is already implied. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Verify whether a specific attestation (by hash) was issued to a DID and is currently valid.' This is a specific verb+resource with a defined outcome (returns boolean). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_attestations and get_trust_score.

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 provides useful context: 'Used in KYC-lite flows and smart-contract gating' and notes the backend is pending. This gives clear scenarios for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives, falling short of a 5.

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