publish_to_topic

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral transparency. It states returns success/error, implying attempt and outcome. It lacks details on validation, permissions, or potential system impact (e.g., publishing to critical topics). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and includes actionable examples. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, nested object) and presence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, return values. Missing edge-case behavior like type mismatch handling, but overall complete.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value with concrete examples showing expected JSON structure for message, clarifying semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Publish a message to any ROS2 topic' with explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'echo_topic_messages' (which listens) and 'get_topic_info' (discovers types).

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?

Provides clear context to use 'get_topic_info' to discover message types, and includes examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives or potential side effects.

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