publish_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says the tool analyzes code and produces a report, but it does not state whether it is read-only, whether it modifies files, what permissions are needed, or what the report output looks like.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the category list is relevant for understanding scope. The description is somewhat verbose because it enumerates categories that also appear in the schema, but it remains focused and readable.

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?

It covers the scan scope and report purpose, but with no output schema and no annotations, the definition leaves important gaps: report format, whether the scan is read-only, and how it relates to the quick and fix siblings. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the 17 categories and the pre-release report context, but it adds no parameter-specific semantics such as how to combine severity and categories. A 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 states a specific action (analyze all code in the project), scope (17 security categories), and output (a comprehensive security report before release). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools publish_control_quick and publish_control_fix.

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?

It implies the tool should be used before publishing/deployment to get a comprehensive security report. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over publish_control_quick or publish_control_fix, and it does not state when not to use it.

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