hcm_probe_capabilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's 'lists' action, so no contradiction. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—only that it checks dummy/seed responses. It doesn't disclose whether it makes external calls, latency, or side effects, but the annotation covers the read-only nature, so a 3 is reasonable.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise but leaves key terms ('curated resources', 'dummy/seed') undefined, which slightly reduces clarity. Still, it's efficient with no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It does mention the output ('lists curated resources and whether dummy/seed responds') but fails to define what those terms mean. For an agent, this ambiguity could lead to incorrect expectations. Given the simplicity of the tool, it's adequate but not complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info, and the schema trivially covers all parameters. There is nothing to improve 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 action ('lists curated resources') and a specific outcome ('whether dummy/seed responds'), giving a clear purpose. It distinguishes from typical CRUD tools but is somewhat ambiguous about what 'curated resources' and 'dummy/seed' mean, so it's not 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when a capability probe is appropriate, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like hcm_health or hcm_test_connection.

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