help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that a bare call returns an overview rather than an error, which is useful but thin; it does not say what an unknown topic yields or whether output is prose or structured.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the purpose followed immediately by the parameter contract. Every word earns its place, including the full topic list which substitutes for the absent schema enum.

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 zero-required, single-parameter, read-only help tool the description covers purpose, both usage modes and the valid topic set. With no output schema, the only remaining omission is a hint about the shape or length of the returned guidance, which is low-stakes here.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the full burden. It does so by explaining that topic is optional and enumerating all fourteen accepted values in prose, effectively supplying the missing enum — only the behavior for an invalid topic is unspecified.

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?

"Hive usage guidance" names the resource and function, and the topic enumeration makes concrete exactly what kind of guidance is available. It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, which are action tools (agent_spawn, pad_write, kv_set) rather than documentation lookups.

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?

Explicitly states the two usage modes: omit topic for an overview, or pass one of the listed topics. That covers when-to-use-within-tool well; the only gap is guidance on when to reach for help rather than inspecting a sibling's own schema.

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