sqo_hive_mind

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context beyond the schema — the persistent store location, cross-repository scope, and the fact that lessons are stack-tagged — but it never says whether 'promote' overwrites or deduplicates an existing lesson, whether 'inject' mutates the target project, or what any action returns.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource identity and store path before enumerating the actions. It is dense but free of filler; the only weakness is that three actions are packed into one clause rather than structured as a short list.

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 six-parameter, four-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more — notably what 'stats' reports and which parameters are mandatory for each action. It covers the conceptual scope well but leaves an agent guessing about per-action parameter requirements and return shape.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the meaning of `stack` by listing concrete stack values and ties `title`/`detail` implicitly to the promote action, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific resource ('Cross-Project Federated Brain') plus a concrete backing file (`~/.sqo/hive_mind.db`) and three distinct verbs (promote, recall, inject), so an agent can tell this is a cross-repo lesson store rather than a general memory tool. It stops short of naming the sibling memory tools it overlaps with, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is conveyed through examples ('promote architectural wisdom/gotchas across repos', 'recall stack-specific lessons', 'inject global lessons into a new project'), which implies when each action applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the adjacent memory tools (sqo_memory_vault, sqo_memory_graph) or any stated prerequisites such as needing an initialized project.

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