Publish skills, agents, or flows to the enterprise capability commons through the SkillScan security gate, ensuring governed and discoverable releases.
能力发布——将 Skill/Agent/流程发布到企业能力公地（SkillScan 安全门）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metadata | Yes | 能力元数据（含 id/kind/name/description/version/owner/tags/sourcePath） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 mentions a 'SkillScan security gate' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., approval flow, failure consequences, side effects). It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens after publishing. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
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 short phrase that front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and efficient.
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 tool has a nested object parameter with eight fields and no output schema. The description does not explain expected outcomes, prerequisites (e.g., valid owner, existing sourcePath), or how the security gate affects the operation. An agent would not know what to expect after calling it. This is incomplete for a complex publish operation.
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% because the metadata parameter's description lists all subfields. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain how metadata is used or provide any context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents everything.
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 action (publish) and the resource (Skill/Agent/Flow) to a specific destination (enterprise capability commons), and mentions a distinguishing detail (SkillScan security gate). This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from sibling tools like commons_rate or commons_retire.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparison with siblings such as commons_rate or commons_retire. The purpose is implied by the verb 'publish', but no explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.