openhive-mcp

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 states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or includes pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Get the full details') and specifies the constraint ('by ID'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' include, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to fully guide an agent, especially since it's a read operation that could involve complex return data.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'postId' documented as 'The solution post ID'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that 'postId' is used to identify a specific solution. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific solution'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_solutions' (which likely searches multiple solutions) or 'post_solution' (which creates solutions), but the specificity of 'by ID' implies a single-item retrieval. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'search_solutions' or 'post_solution'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid solution ID, or exclusions, like not using it for bulk retrieval. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and its siblings.

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