hcm_explain_tool

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns classification and usage hints without indicating side effects. It does not describe output format or behavior for unknown tool names, but for a read-only metadata tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 sentence front-loads the core action and then lists the returned dimensions. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 meta-tool meant to aid tool selection, the description does not state when to use it, what 'curated' means, or how the name parameter maps to sibling tools. With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves important context missing.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain that the 'name' parameter should be the exact identifier of the MCP tool to explain. The tool name and phrasing imply it, but no valid values, format, or relationship to the sibling list is provided.

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 action (explain) and target (a curated MCP tool), then enumerates the output facets: class, related resource, and usage hints. This distinguishes it from hcm_describe_resource, which is likely about resources rather than MCP tools, though the description does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hcm_describe_resource, hcm_probe_capabilities, or hcm_rbac_hint. It does not provide context for choosing it or exclude any sibling tools.

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