HiveGate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'Weighted algorithm' but doesn't explain how it works, what the output looks like (e.g., trust score range), whether it's a read or write operation, or any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely updates 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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and adds algorithmic context efficiently, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and full parameter meanings. For a tool that likely performs trust scoring with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 33% (only 'guest_did' and 'native_reputation.score' have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'guest_did' is for an external agent and 'native_reputation' includes platform metrics, but doesn't clarify 'source_platform' enum choices or other nested fields. With low coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Map external agent reputation to Hive trust score' with a 'Weighted algorithm based on platform reliability and reputation metrics.' This specifies the verb (map), resource (external agent reputation), and transformation (to Hive trust score). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like hivegate_register_guest or hivegate_translate_intent, but the mapping function is distinct.

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. It mentions 'external agent reputation' and 'platform reliability,' but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or contrast with sibling tools like hivegate_execute or hivegate_register_guest. Usage is implied only by the purpose 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'bridge fee' and 'proxies requests', but doesn't disclose authentication needs (beyond implied parameters), rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'transaction'. This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the transactional nature implied by 'execute', leaving significant gaps for proper tool 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 71%, providing a baseline. The description adds minimal value by implying 'bridge fee' relates to 'max_fee_usdc' and 'cross-ecosystem' hints at 'target_service', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb 'Execute' and resource 'cross-ecosystem transaction through HiveGate', specifying it proxies requests to Hive services with a bridge fee. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hivegate_bridge_trust' by focusing on general execution rather than specific trust operations, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 like 'hivegate_bridge_trust' or 'hivegate_translate_intent' is provided. The description mentions proxying requests with a bridge fee, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (guest_did, access_token, trust mapping) but lacks critical details: whether this is a mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a registration tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return values with zero wasted words. Every element ('Register an external agent', 'Returns guest_did, access_token, and trust mapping') serves a clear purpose.

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 complexity (registration with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, mutation implications, error conditions, or how the returned access_token should be used. For a tool that likely involves system changes and security, more context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like external_id and source_platform). It relies entirely on the schema for parameter 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Register an external agent'), the resource ('with a Guest DID on HiveGate'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on guest registration rather than trust bridging, execution, or intent translation. It uses precise terminology like 'external agent' and 'Guest DID'.

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 like hivegate_bridge_trust, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It states what the tool does but offers no context for decision-making between sibling 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (translation) but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, whether it's idempotent, or what the output format looks like. For a translation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information. The single sentence efficiently communicates the core functionality and supported frameworks without any wasted words. Every element earns its place in this compact description.

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's complexity (translating between frameworks with nested object parameters) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'intent' object, what the Hive-native format looks like, or what happens during translation failures. For a bridge tool between different AI frameworks, more contextual information is needed.

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 50% (only source_platform has a description). The description adds value by listing the specific platform options (LangChain, CrewAI, etc.) that correspond to the source_platform enum, which helps clarify parameter meaning. However, it doesn't provide additional context about the 'intent' parameter beyond what's minimally implied by 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: translating framework-specific intents to Hive-native format. It specifies the verb ('translate') and resource ('framework-specific intent'), and lists the supported frameworks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hivegate_execute or hivegate_register_guest, which prevents a perfect 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this translation step fits into a broader workflow with the sibling tools. The list of supported frameworks implies usage context but doesn't constitute explicit guidelines.

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