Publish a folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the folder must contain index.html or .md/.pdf files and that they are served through the reader, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether publishing overwrites an existing site, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and return value are front-loaded, and the content requirements are stated efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple publish operation with 2 parameters and no output schema. It explains what the tool does and the folder content requirements. However, it lacks details about what happens when 'site' is omitted (creates a new site) versus when it's provided (overwrites?), and doesn't describe the URL format or any side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the folder content requirements but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the 'path' and 'site' parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'publishes', the resource 'a folder of static files', and the outcome 'returns its URL'. It also specifies the required content (index.html or .md/.pdf files), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_files.

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 when to use this tool: when you have a folder of static files with an index.html or markdown/PDF files. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the content requirements provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus publish_files.

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