Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• contribute_solutionB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or success/failure behavior. It only says 'Submit' without mentioning whether the submission is additive, overwrites existing entries, requires authentication, or what the response contains.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and object.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite the schema being complete, the description lacks any usage guidance or behavioral context. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already describes all three parameters (query, category, solution) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Submit') and identifies the resource ('new solution to the hivemind knowledge base'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_kb and contribute_project.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_kb or report_outcome. The description only states the action without context or exclusions.

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

• contribute_projectA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: private-by-default with optional public visibility, dynamic categories, and the auto-analysis mode for 'update hive' versus the interactive ask mode for 'add to hive'. It does not cover edge cases like overwriting or authentication, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists triggers, then explains the two distinct interaction modes. It also covers privacy and category flexibility without redundancy. It is slightly longer than necessary, but each sentence serves a role for the AI agent's routing and behavior.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains purpose, triggers, behavior, privacy, and category semantics. However, it misses prerequisites (e.g., the project hive must exist, requiring init_hive or init_project_kb) and does not describe what the tool returns after a successful contribution. These gaps make it less than fully complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds some context by mentioning 'Stores solutions, patterns, pitfalls, architecture decisions' (relevant to query/solution/category) and 'Categories are dynamic' (relevant to category param), but this is minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with 'Add knowledge to project hive', a clear verb+resource statement. It further lists content types (solutions, patterns, pitfalls, architecture decisions) that give concrete scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like contribute_solution or update_project_entry, so it stops short of a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('add to hive', 'update hive', etc.) and conditional behavior: for 'update hive' it says to analyze recent work and contribute automatically, while for 'add to hive' it says to ask what the user wants to store. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives like using contribute_solution or init_hive.

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

• count_skillsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states a simple read operation ('Get total count'), which is inherently non-destructive, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as performance implications, whether the count includes all skills globally, or how the result is returned. The description is minimal but sufficient for a trivially simple operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose without any filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple count operation, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., a bare integer vs. a JSON object), though this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of its (non-existent) properties. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add any parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('skills'), and specifies the result ('total count'). It is concise and unambiguous, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like search_skills and get_skill by focusing specifically on counting rather than retrieving or searching.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. While the name implies it for counting, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer count_skills over search_skills, nor any exclusions or context. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

• search_projectA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 notes that the search covers private entries and optionally public entries, and that it returns solutions, patterns, and decisions. However, it lacks details on side effects (likely none), authentication, or error conditions, making it minimally adequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise, with two sentences and a focused trigger list. The trigger list is somewhat lengthy but directly useful for an AI agent to recognize invocation contexts. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and does not waste words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description should explain what to expect. It says returns 'relevant solutions, patterns, architecture decisions, etc.', but this is vague. It also does not mention result ordering, limits, or the need for project_path in local storage scenarios. It is sufficient for a basic search tool but lacks completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning, such as hinting at include_public via 'optionally public entries', but does not compensate for or extend the schema in a meaningful way. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Search project hive for knowledge' with a specific verb and resource. The trigger phrases further clarify the supported user intents, and the mention of private/public entries distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_kb and search_skills.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The TRIGGERS section provides concrete example queries that indicate when the tool should be used, such as 'search my hive for [topic]'. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls 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.

• list_my_hivesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and adds context about local storage searching the current directory for .user_id files. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like empty results, permissions, or side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The trigger list is somewhat long but not wasteful, and the sentence about local storage is useful. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields, trigger phrases, and local storage behavior. It is complete for most use cases, though it could mention what happens when no hives are found or when parameters are omitted.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 adds a bit of context about local storage behavior, but the schema already describes both user_id (auto-detected) and project_path (for local storage), so no significant extra meaning is provided.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool 'List all project hives for a user', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also specifies the return fields (project_id, project_name, entry count), distinguishing it from siblings like get_hive_overview or search_project.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('show me my hives', 'list my hives', etc.) that clearly signal when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the 'when-not' guidance for a 5.

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

• report_outcomeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the behavioral consequence 'Helps improve solution rankings,' which discloses the effect of reporting. It does not mention auth, mutability, or the optional solution_id behavior, but the core action and outcome are clear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two short sentences with no filler. The key action ('Report whether a solution worked') and the benefit ('improve solution rankings') are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a two-parameter feedback tool, the description is adequate but omits clarification on the optional solution_id and what the tool returns or confirms. It also does not link the report explicitly to search results, though the schema partially covers this.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the outcome enum and solution_id explanation. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'a solution' with the outcome dimension. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like contribute_solution by focusing on feedback on existing solutions rather than adding new ones.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage after attempting a solution ("whether a solution worked or not") and the ranking improvement suggests it is for existing solutions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus contribute_solution or mention when not to use it.

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

• update_project_entryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Description indicates mutation ('Update an existing') and implies no upsert by saying 'existing'. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior of unspecified fields, and no annotations exist to fill the gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb. Efficient and scannable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 6-param tool without annotations or output schema, description provides core operation and scope but omits return value, error handling, and guidance on non-existent entries. Minimal viable but not comprehensive.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. Description adds marginal value by enumerating editable fields but doesn't elaborate on how entry_id is obtained or project_path usage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States clearly it updates an existing project hive entry, with specific editable fields (query, solution, category). The scope limitation 'not global hivemind KB' distinguishes it from broader KB tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides an explicit scope exclusion: 'Only works for project entries (not global hivemind KB)'. However, it does not name alternatives like contribute_project or delete_project_entry, nor does it state when to prefer this over them.

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

• delete_project_entryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authorization requirement that users can only delete their own entries, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens on failure, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a straightforward delete operation, the description provides adequate usage context and the key ownership restriction. While it does not mention return values or error behavior, the complete schema and simple action make this sufficient for effective tool selection.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific nuance beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Delete an entry from your project hive') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_hive and update_project_entry by specifying 'entry' rather than the whole hive or an update operation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit use cases ('Use when user wants to remove outdated, incorrect, or duplicate entries') and an ownership constraint ('Users can only delete their own entries'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intent is clear.

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

• get_hive_overviewA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get overview' and details the returned data (category breakdown, recent additions), but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, or storage-related nuances (e.g., local vs remote).

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description adequately covers the tool's functionality for its simplicity: it lists the return components and provides example user prompts. It does not explain return formatting or error handling, but given the lack of output schema and the straightforward nature of an overview tool, this is sufficient. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the hive overview concept but does not enhance parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get overview of project hive' with specific components (total entries, category breakdown, recent additions). It distinguishes from siblings like search_kb (search) and list_my_hives (listing hives) through the focus on a single project's summary.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit trigger phrases ('show me my hive' or 'hive overview') that indicate when to use this tool. Does not mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, but the context is reasonably clear.

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

• get_skillA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes 'full instructions and executable steps,' setting expectations about the return content. While it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the verb 'get' and the nature of the tool make this clear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple 1-parameter get operation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return content, especially since there is no output schema. It lacks only minor details about error handling or how to obtain the skill_id, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage for skill_id ('The ID of the skill to retrieve'), which is straightforward. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the retrieval, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific skill'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_skills, which implies searching across multiple skills. It also specifies the scope ('specific skill') and content ('full instructions and executable steps').

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when a specific skill_id is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_skills or state when not to use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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

• init_hiveA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the multi-step onboarding flow, conditional behavior based on project_path, and the critical instruction to display the 'message' field exactly as returned. It does not mention potential side effects beyond creating files (e.g., CLAUDE.md), but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is moderately detailed but well-structured with labeled sections (TRIGGERS, Onboarding flow, IMPORTANT). Every sentence adds useful information, and the critical message-handling instruction is prominently flagged. It is longer than necessary but appropriately so given the complex flow.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the tool's main use case, onboarding nuances, edge cases (missing project_path), and an important output-handling instruction. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of return values beyond the 'message' field leaves some gaps, though the given context is strong for a 5-parameter tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining behavioral implications of omitting project_path ('creates empty hive with starter categories only'), that storage_choice should be omitted on first call, and the role of is_first_time_user. This raises it above baseline.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool creates a new project hive (knowledge base) with specific trigger phrases, making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'init_project_kb', which likely serves a similar function, so it falls short of a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit trigger phrases and outlines the onboarding flow (first call checks user history, asks first-time question, guides storage choice), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or specify alternatives, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance for a 5.

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

• analyze_hive_updatesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several key behaviors: duplicate checking, quality enforcement requiring FILES/VERSION, category fragmentation detection, pattern prompting, and suggestion of updates vs new entries. It also states its preventive purpose. It lacks explicit info about side effects or return values, but the detail provided is substantial.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with a clear action statement but includes some redundancy and marketing-like phrasing ('SMART UPLOAD PROTOCOL', 'PREVENTS hive mistakes by forcing good practices'). It could be more concise by removing the label and final sentence, but it's not excessively long.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers purpose, triggers, and key behaviors, but given that no output schema exists, it does not explain what the tool returns or what the user should expect after analysis. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites beyond the schema. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail on the result would improve completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline understanding of all parameters. The description adds semantic meaning by emphasizing that FILES/VERSION are required for quality, which maps to the session_summary and files_changed parameters. It also implies how problems_solved is used for duplicate detection. This enriches the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: analyze proposed hive additions before upload. It lists specific actions (checks duplicates, enforces quality, detects fragmentation, prompts for patterns, suggests updates vs new entries) and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its pre-upload analysis role, setting it apart from actual update/contribution tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('update hive', 'add to hive') and clearly indicates when to use the tool (before uploading). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger and 'BEFORE uploading' context make the usage context clear.

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

• delete_hiveA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive nature of the operation and that it cascades to all knowledge entries. While it doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, the described impact is sufficient for an agent to understand this is a high-impact deletion.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long, direct, and front-loaded with the essential action ('Delete project hive...') followed by the use case. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is a simple destructive operation with no output schema. The description provides the essential context: what is deleted, the scope (all knowledge entries), and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly without additional details about return values or side effects.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but not exceptional. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the semantics.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool deletes a project hive and all associated knowledge entries, distinguishing it from siblings that read, create, or update hives. It also explains the purpose (start fresh or remove completely), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance ('Use this to start fresh or remove a project's knowledge base completely'), which implies when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not name specific alternatives like delete_project_entry, but the sibling context makes the intended use case clear enough.

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

• init_project_kbA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 some behavioral traits: the tool returns a user_id and cloud storage users get 10x rate limits. However, it does not mention side effects like whether initializing an existing project overwrites data, or if special permissions are required, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second instructs on the return value usage, and the third provides a key behavioral detail (rate limits). It is well-structured and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value ('Returns user_id to store for future contributions'). It covers the core functionality and rate-limit consequence. However, it omits potential failure scenarios (e.g., duplicate project_id) and does not explain how the KB relates to sibling tools, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the storage_type parameter: 'Cloud storage users get 10x rate limits (1000/hour vs 100/hour)' explains the practical consequence of choosing cloud over local. It also notes the returned user_id should be stored for contributions, linking to project_id usage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Initialize a project-specific knowledge base with cloud storage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_kb or contribute_solution, and the mention of returning a user_id further clarifies its role.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (initializing a project-specific KB) and instructs the user to store the returned user_id for future contributions. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as when to prefer init_hive instead.

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

• search_kbA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are 'ranked solutions with success rates,' which is beyond what the schema reveals. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but for a search tool this is safely inferred from 'search.'

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, directly front-loaded with the verb 'Search,' and contains no fluff. Every word adds value, making it a model of conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately explains the purpose and return behavior ('ranked solutions with success rates'). It could be more complete by addressing edge cases or limitations, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently well-rounded for a basic search tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description covers the 'query' parameter meaning fully (100% coverage), so a high parameter-semantics score is not needed. The tool description adds domain context (troubleshooting) but no additional syntax or format details, aligning with the baseline of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('hivemind knowledge base'), with explicit content types ('troubleshooting solutions, error fixes, and best practices'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_skills' and 'search_project' by specifying the knowledge base domain.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool (when seeking troubleshooting solutions, error fixes, or best practices) and provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use search_skills for skill-related queries'), so it falls short of the highest level of guidance.

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

• search_skillsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 that results are 'lightweight summaries', setting expectations about the depth of the returned data and implicitly indicating that this is a non-destructive search operation. This goes beyond the schema by revealing output characteristics.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence with two clauses. It front-loads the action ('Search for skills') and immediately conveys the key behavioral caveat and follow-up action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns (lightweight summaries), and what to do next (use get_skill). It does not enumerate specific result fields or pagination details, but these are less critical given the explicit pointer to get_skill for full details.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the query parameter already clearly described as 'Topic or keyword to search for (e.g., 'deployment', 'testing', 'CI/CD')'. The description's 'by topic/keyword' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it neither enhances nor impairs parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description begins with 'Search for skills by topic/keyword', which uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource ('skills'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_skill by noting that this returns lightweight summaries and directing users to get_skill for full details.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states 'use get_skill() for full details', providing a clear alternative for a specific scenario (when full details are needed). It does not discuss alternatives like search_kb or search_project, but it gives sufficient guidance for the primary decision between search_skills and get_skill.

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