hcm_list_resources

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict it. It adds a small behavioral/scope cue ('curated') indicating this is not an exhaustive listing, but it does not disclose response shape, ordering, or any operational behavior. With annotations covering the read-only safety, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no-input list operation with a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could improve by noting what the output contains (e.g., resource names usable with hcm_describe_resource), but as-is it gives enough for selection and 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?

There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100%, so the description accurately has nothing to explain. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('curated HCM resource roots'), and adds context ('supported by this unofficial MCP'). It is distinguishable from siblings like hcm_describe_resource and hcm_search_* because it enumerates available roots rather than operating on a specific record, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as hcm_describe_resource or hcm_probe_capabilities. The intended discovery-for-later-use is only implied; an agent gets no instruction on whether to call this before other tools.

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