HiveGate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the weighted algorithm and reputation metrics, but it leaves ambiguity about whether the tool returns a mapped score or updates the guest's trust, especially since the schema parameter description says 'update trust for.' This does not directly contradict the readOnlyHint, but the ambiguity is notable.

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 concise sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence clearly states the primary action, and the second adds relevant algorithmic detail without waste.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and annotations that require interpretation. The description is too sparse to tell an agent what to expect—such as the output format, whether the trust score is persisted or only returned, or any prerequisites (e.g., guest registration). It conveys the core idea but not enough for confident invocation.

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 only 33%, with only guest_did described. The description references 'platform reliability' and 'reputation metrics,' which loosely map to source_platform and native_reputation, but it does not explain how the nested reputation object's fields are weighted or how guest_did is used. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 clear action—mapping external agent reputation to a Hive trust score—and mentions a weighted algorithm, which distinguishes it from siblings like hivegate_execute or hivegate_register_guest. However, 'map' is somewhat abstract and could imply either calculation or state mutation, so it isn't maximally specific.

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 when an external agent's reputation needs to be converted into a Hive trust score, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling names provide context but no direct when-to-use guidance is given.

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 supply readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: requests are proxied to Hive services and a bridge fee is charged. This goes beyond the annotation flags, though it stops short of explaining error handling or response details.

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 concise sentences, immediately stating the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested payloads, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It omits the usage flow (e.g., need to register a guest first) and does not clarify response behavior or failure modes. It covers the essential function but lacks surrounding context.

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 71%, with descriptions for most parameters and enums for method and target_service. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at the bridge fee that relates to max_fee_usdc. It neither compensates for undocumented parameters nor adds significant clarity.

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 specific action verbs ('execute', 'proxies requests') and clearly identifies the resource (cross-ecosystem transactions via HiveGate). It differentiates itself from siblings like register_guest and translate_intent, which serve distinct 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 its sibling tools. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., registration), alternative tools, or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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 non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds what the tool returns (guest_did, access_token, trust mapping). It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or trust mapping semantics, so it adds only moderate behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, and return values without extraneous text. It is well structured and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, and the description covers only the top-level purpose and return fields. It lacks details about the registration flow, trust mapping semantics, or parameter interactions, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents most parameters adequately. The tool description does not further clarify parameter meanings, relationships, or constraints, so it adds minimal value 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 names the specific action 'Register' and the resource 'an external agent with a Guest DID on HiveGate,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute or bridge_trust. It also lists expected return values, adding specificity to the purpose.

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 this tool is for onboarding external agents that need a Guest DID, which is a distinct use case from the siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, so it lacks the explicit exclusion criterion for a top score.

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 and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of supported frameworks, but does not elaborate on behavior such as error handling for unsupported formats or the exact structure of the Hive-native output. It adds some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then listing supported frameworks. There is no redundancy or filler; 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and supported inputs, but it omits the 'custom' platform option, doesn't describe the output structure, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or side effects. Given that annotations already cover safety, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (only 'intent' has a description). The description restates the allowed source_platform values but notably omits the 'custom' enum option that appears in the schema. It does not clarify what 'Hive-native format' means or add syntax details beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Translate') and resource ('framework-specific intent'), and indicates the target format ('Hive-native'). It also lists supported frameworks, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like hivegate_execute or hivegate_bridge_trust.

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 when to use it (when you have an intent from a supported framework to convert), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context by naming the frameworks, but lacks exclusionary guidance that would warrant a 5.

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