HiveGate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds that a weighted algorithm is used, which is behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases (e.g., unknown guest DID) or what happens to existing trust scores.

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?

Single sentence of 20 words. Front-loaded purpose. No filler or redundancy. Efficiently captures core function.

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?

No output schema and description does not mention return value (e.g., the computed trust score). For a tool with nested objects and 3 required parameters, more clarity on input expectations and output format is needed. Schema covers some parameter details but description doesn't tie them together.

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 only 33% (only guest_did has description). The description does not add meaning to the other two parameters (source_platform, native_reputation) beyond mentioning 'platform reliability' and 'reputation metrics' vaguely. Does not explain the enum meaning or structure of native_reputation.

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 verb 'Map' and resources 'external agent reputation to Hive trust score'. Distinguishes from siblings which are execution, registration, and intent translation, none of which handle reputation bridging.

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 this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., guest must be registered) or exclusions. The description implies usage for trust mapping but lacks explicit context.

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?

Annotations provide minimal safety details (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds only 'with bridge fee' as a behavioral cost, but does not disclose side effects, failure modes, reversibility, or state changes beyond the vague 'transaction'. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

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 succinct sentences, immediately stating the core function. No redundant details, front-loaded with the primary action. Efficient use of space.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description omits crucial context: no explanation of return values, error handling, authentication flow for guest_did/access_token, usage of max_fee_usdc, or any contrast with sibling tools. Leaves significant gaps for a complex cross-ecosystem transaction 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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context about proxying and bridge fees but does not elaborate on specific parameter usage, such as how to set max_fee_usdc or format the payload. The schema itself covers most parameter meanings.

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 the verb 'execute' and the resource 'cross-ecosystem transaction through HiveGate', adding detail about proxying to Hive services with a bridge fee. It is distinct from sibling tools like hivegate_register_guest or hivegate_bridge_trust, which handle registration or trust bridging.

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 this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with sibling tools. The description only states function without decision support.

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?

Annotations are present but the description adds moderate context by stating the return values. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply (destructiveHint=false).

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key outputs. Every sentence provides essential 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 the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description mentions return values but lacks details on idempotency, conflict handling, or behavior for existing agents. Annotations partially compensate but overall completeness is average.

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 high (83%), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not clarify the nested 'native_reputation' object or any parameter constraints.

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 action ('Register'), the resource ('external agent with a Guest DID on HiveGate'), and the expected return values ('guest_did, access_token, and trust mapping'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hivegate_bridge_trust, which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, providing strong behavioral guarantees. The description adds the list of supported platforms, which is valuable context. No mention of error handling or output format, but acceptable given annotations.

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 conveying purpose and scope with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then specifics. Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the translation task and supported sources. The output is implied as Hive-native format. Not mentioning the output shape is a minor gap.

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 description enriches the schema by listing the supported platforms in readable form. The intent parameter is described as 'framework-specific', adding context. Schema coverage is 50%, but the description compensates by clarifying the intent object's role. Could specify more about the intent structure.

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 verb 'Translate' and resource 'framework-specific intent', with outcome 'Hive-native format'. Lists supported platforms, providing specific scope. Distinguishes well from sibling tools which handle trust, execution, and registration.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: to convert a supported framework's intent to Hive format. Does not provide exclusion criteria or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated so no confusion. Could be improved by mentioning it is read-only and idempotent.

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