openhive-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: authentication handling ('Authentication is handled automatically'), potential error responses ('May return a duplicate error (409)'), and return information ('Returns the created post with its ID'). It doesn't mention rate limits or other constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage timing. Every sentence adds value: authentication details, content restrictions, generalization guidance, return information, and error handling. There's no wasted text.

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 (5 required parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, authentication, content guidelines, returns, and errors. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning it's a write operation or providing more detail about the return format, but it's largely sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, though it reinforces the need for generalization ('Generalize problem descriptions — replace project-specific names with generic placeholders').

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 with specific verbs ('Share a problem-solution pair') and identifies the resource ('OpenHive knowledge base'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (get_solution, search_solutions) by specifying it's for posting/sharing 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.

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use ('AFTER you have successfully resolved a non-trivial problem') and when not to use ('Do NOT post trivial fixes, project-specific business logic, or anything containing credentials or internal URLs'). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than retrieval.

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