hcm_list_atom_entries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does add one meaningful behavioral trait: 'Dummy returns mock change events,' which warns that the tool may return synthetic data. It does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or the meaning of the finder/q parameters, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 very short and front-loads the core purpose: 'List Atom feed / change-detection entries.' The second sentence about dummy/mock behavior is useful and earns its place. It is not bloated, though the term 'Dummy' itself is slightly unclear.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly hint, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of the filtering/search parameters, how pagination works, or what shape the mock change events take. The 'Dummy returns mock change events' note is helpful but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 20%, with only 'collection' having a description ('e.g. workers'). The description adds no parameter semantics at all: q, limit, finder, and offset remain unexplained in both the schema and description. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List Atom feed / change-detection entries (Fusion atomfeeds).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hcm_list_atom_feeds and hcm_get_atom_entry by focusing on entries rather than feeds or individual entry retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming an alternative or scope, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as hcm_get_atom_entry, hcm_atom_poll, hcm_detect_changes, or hcm_atom_consume. The phrase 'Dummy returns mock change events' hints that the output may be non-production data, but it does not explain the intended use case or when an alternative should be preferred.

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