hcm_list_atom_feeds

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation — 'List' is a read operation, so no contradiction exists. It adds modest value beyond the annotation by clarifying the feeds are change-detection oriented and by revealing that this environment exposes workers/absences/all. However, it does not disclose the return format or behavior when no feeds exist, and with the safety profile already covered by annotations, the extra disclosure is limited.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence ('List known Atom / change-detection feeds'). The second sentence about the dummy environment is useful context, though the phrase 'Dummy exposes' is slightly cryptic and could confuse an agent about whether this is a production or test listing. Overall it is efficiently sized with minimal waste.

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 simple, no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the purpose and even hints at available feed types. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., what a feed entry looks like or how IDs map to hcm_get_atom_feed), and since there is no output schema, an agent has no structured fallback for that information. This is adequate but leaves a meaningful gap for downstream feed consumption.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool starts at a baseline of 4. The description adds contextual value by naming the actual feed types available (workers/absences/all), even though no parameter semantics are needed here.

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 ('List') and resource ('known Atom / change-detection feeds'). The qualifier 'collection-oriented' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling hcm_get_atom_feed, which would target a single feed. The note 'Dummy exposes workers/absences/all' adds concrete detail about what feeds exist, making the purpose tangible. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. 'Collection-oriented' only implies that this is for enumerating feeds rather than retrieving a single one (hcm_get_atom_feed), and it doesn't differentiate from related siblings like hcm_atom_poll, hcm_atom_consume, or hcm_detect_changes. An agent must infer the intended use case from the name and the qualifier rather than from explicit routing guidance.

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