status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, makes no external HTTP calls, requires no authentication, and is deterministic given unchanged backend state. This is comprehensive and adds significant context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and filters, side effects, usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no verbose or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool returns (publish state), how to filter, its side effects, and how it relates to sibling tools. There are no gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the combination behavior of the two filters and the default behavior when neither is given ('returns all entries when neither is given'). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 starts with 'Return publish state for content pieces', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that state-changing operations should use other tools (publish, schedule, drain).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('inspect what has been published, what is queued, or what errored') and when not to ('use publish, schedule, or drain to change state'). This makes the decision boundary very clear.

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