hcm_setup_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a public config view, includes write/sensitive flags and tool counts, and explicitly excludes secrets. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what data is exposed and reassuring about data sensitivity.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs meaningful specifics into very few words. Every clause—'public config view,' 'write/sensitive flags,' 'tool counts,' and 'no secrets'—adds information without filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is largely complete: it states what kind of information is returned and reassures that no secrets are included. It could be slightly richer about the exact shape or origin of 'write/sensitive flags,' but nothing needed for invoking the tool is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Following the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description has no obligation to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as exposing setup/configuration status and enumerates its contents: public config view, write/sensitive flags, and tool counts. It is not a tautology because it adds substantive specifics beyond the name, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like hcm_health or hcm_export_config.

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 implies the tool is a safe, read-only status/config inspection endpoint by calling it a 'public config view' and noting it contains 'no secrets.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any siblings for comparison.

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