All Published Items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about the scope ('across all resource types') and purpose ('complete overview'), but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or response format that would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the tool's scope and action, the second provides explicit usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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 complexity (aggregating multiple resource types), the rich annotations cover safety and behavior aspects well, and with 0 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by explaining what information will be returned ('everything published in the farm').

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the input requirements.

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 specific action ('List all published items') and resource scope ('across all resource types (RDS, VDI, AVD apps and desktops) in a single view'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ras_pub_get_avd_apps or ras_pub_get_rds_apps that focus on specific resource types. It explicitly mentions the comprehensive nature of the tool versus more targeted alternatives.

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 this tool ('for a complete overview of everything published in the farm, or to search across all resource types'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle specific resource types or administrative functions. It clearly indicates this is the tool for cross-resource aggregation rather than filtered views.

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