hive_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: permission-limited reads, not_found for unreadable entries, history-chain composition, feedback contents, and batch reply ordering. It leaves some edge cases unaddressed, such as behavior when both entry_id and entry_ids are supplied or when neither is supplied.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and then packs parameter and return details into tight sentences. It is slightly dense and repeats the 'limited to what you may read' idea, but there is little obvious filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a lot: it explains return fields, permission behavior, history, links, and batch responses. It is not fully complete because it does not clarify the no-ID case, both-ID-forms case, or default empty entry_id behavior.

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 must compensate; it adds useful meaning for include_history and entry_ids, including the batch limit of 10 and the reply structure. The entry_id parameter is only implied by contrast with entry_ids, and the empty default is not explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a full entry including its body,' and makes clear it retrieves by ID(s) rather than searching or listing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as hive_search or hive_list, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives some contextual guidance, such as using 'entry_ids' instead of 'entry_id' to open several hits at once and using 'include_history' for supersession chains. However, it does not say when to use hive_get versus hive_search or hive_list, nor does it clarify whether entry_id or entry_ids is expected.

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