hb_auto_list_chains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no return shape, no filtering/pagination, no indication of what 'available' or 'local' means at runtime. 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read, but that is an inference, not a disclosure.

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; the verb and the scoping adjective ('local') come first. Nothing is wasted.

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 list tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say something about what a caller gets back (chain identifiers, definitions, ordering) to be fully actionable.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no arguments to misunderstand.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('local automation chain definitions'), making the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like hb_auto_run or hb_auto_status, but the naming plus 'definitions' vs 'run'/'status' makes the distinction inferable.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hb_auto_run, hb_auto_status, or hb_auto_result. 'List available' weakly implies a discovery step before running a chain, but nothing is spelled out.

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