hive__job_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return values but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or error handling. The read-only nature is implicit but not confirmed.

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 very short but includes a system context bracket ('[hive — ...]') that is not tool-specific. It achieves conciseness but at the cost of some focus. Structure is minimal; could be more tool-centric.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides only the return categories. It lacks details on error handling, return format, or typical use cases, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently use.

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 input schema has one parameter 'job_id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what a valid job_id is, how to obtain it, or any format restrictions. No added semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'job state, plan hash, and live budget conservation books', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hive__solve (creates jobs) and hive__audit_job (audits jobs). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for checking job status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is inferred from the tool name and description, but not explicitly guided.

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