hcm_atom_poll

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the operation safe, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: it explicitly states that the cursor is not advanced and that polling is relative to a stored checkpoint. This addresses the most important behavioral concern for an agent choosing between poll and consume.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core behavior and the critical non-mutating guarantee. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description conveys the essential polling semantics and the read-only nature, but with no output schema it does not describe the return format or content. Combined with the undocumented limit and collection parameters, the definition is adequate for a basic call but incomplete for confident autonomous invocation.

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 only 33%, with limit and collection left undescribed, and the description does not compensate for these gaps. The 'since' phrase mirrors the schema's own description rather than adding meaning. The agent is left guessing about limit semantics and what 'collection: all' refers to.

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 states a specific verb ('poll'), a precise resource ('Atom feed'), and the key mechanism ('after the stored checkpoint cursor or since'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not advance the cursor, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context: this is a read-style polling operation that does not mutate cursor state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the non-advancing-cursor behavior strongly implies the contrast with consuming tools like hcm_atom_consume, so the guidance is clear enough without being fully explicit.

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