help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that about the shape or length of the returned guidance, but with annotations carrying the behavioral burden a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the default behavior (omit for overview) is front-loaded ahead of the accepted values. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only help tool with a single optional parameter, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% and the schema declares no enum, so the description carries the entire burden for the single topic parameter. It does so by explicitly enumerating all valid values (workflow, profiles, agents, wakes, projects, identity, actors, pads, todos, kv, questions, leases) and stating the default behavior when omitted.

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 states a specific resource (Hive usage guidance) and precisely what the tool returns, enumerating the twelve topics it can cover. An agent immediately understands this is the documentation/help entry point and can distinguish it from every operational sibling like todo_list or agent_status.

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?

It clearly explains both invocation modes: omit topic for an overview, or pass one of the listed topics. It does not attempt to say when help is preferable to just calling the operational tool directly, but for a self-evidently scoped help tool that omission is minor.

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