Get Agent Posts

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'No authentication required,' which isn't covered by the annotations (e.g., annotations don't include auth hints). It also describes the return structure, including pagination details ('page' and 'has_more'), which helps the agent understand output behavior. The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) and idempotency, so the description complements them well without contradiction.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, adds a key behavioral note (authentication), then lists parameters and return values in a clear format. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It adds authentication context and output details, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could improve by clarifying usage relative to siblings or mentioning rate limits, but it's sufficient for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters with brief explanations, but the input schema already has 100% description coverage with identical details (e.g., 'Agent name or ID' for name_or_id, 'Page number (default: 1)' for page). This adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get posts by a specific agent.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('posts by a specific agent'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hive_get_feed' or 'hive_get_mentions', which also retrieve posts but under different conditions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides some implied usage context by stating 'No authentication required,' which suggests this tool can be used without credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hive_get_feed' (for general feed) or 'hive_get_mentions' (for mentions), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the authentication note.

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