hive__audit_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'simulated flags' and implies read-only retrieval, but does not explain what happens if the job is not completed or the job_id is invalid. It lacks detail on side effects or authentication needs.

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 sentence that efficiently packs key information, including the context prefix and a list of returned items. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though the list makes it slightly long.

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 an output schema, the description lists major return components (plan, hires, reviews, etc.) but does not cover pagination, size limits, or error conditions. It provides a decent overview but lacks depth for complex usage.

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%, so the description should explain the 'job_id' parameter. However, it only lists parameter names without adding meaning like format, purpose, or constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare existence.

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 ('Return') and the resource ('full content-addressed lineage of a completed job'), listing specific components like plan, hires, reviews, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hive__job_status' and 'hive__verify_audit' by specifying the detailed audit output.

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 implies use for completed jobs but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'hive__job_status' for status or 'hive__verify_audit' for verification. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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