hive_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: pagination, body omission from results, AND-semantics and case-insensitivity for entities, and what flagged/relied_on_changed mean in workflow terms. However, include_inactive is never explained, limit/offset handling is only covered by the word 'paginated', and nothing is said about permissions or result ordering.

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?

Every sentence is doing work: the first fixes scope, the second enumerates filters and their semantics, the third and fourth define the two special modes and their follow-up action, the last explains the compact result shape and the escape hatch. No filler, and the most decision-relevant framing leads.

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 16-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, this description covers the large majority of what an agent needs to call it correctly, including the follow-up pattern for reading full bodies. The unexplained include_inactive flag and the thin pagination guidance are the main remaining holes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 16 parameters, the description does substantial work: it names kind, tags, entities, scope, author, agent, memory-date and ingest-date ranges, flagged, relied_on_changed, and include_body, and adds non-obvious semantics like AND-matching and case-insensitivity for entities. Gaps remain for include_inactive and for limit/offset defaults and bounds.

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 ('List / filter entries without a query') and adds the scope qualifier 'filter only, paginated', which implicitly separates it from the query-based hive_search sibling. It does not name hive_search explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated, keeping it just below a 5.

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 clear operating context: use this when you have filters but no query, then open results with hive_get or set include_body: true. It also explains the two special modes (flagged, relied_on_changed) and what to do after listing. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use hive_search when you have a query', so the routing to the key alternative is left implicit.

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