init_hive

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.