Publishing Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the tool's diagnostic purpose ('verify publishing is functioning or diagnose why resources are unavailable') and hinting at return content ('pending changes'), which isn't captured in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and return values, and the second provides explicit usage guidelines. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), rich annotations, and clear purpose, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context effectively. A slight deduction because it doesn't detail the exact format of return values (e.g., structure of 'pending changes'), but this is minor given the annotations and diagnostic nature.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the description adds value elsewhere.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the overall publishing service status and health') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on publishing service status rather than specific published items (like ras_pub_get_all_items, ras_pub_get_desktops, etc.). It explicitly mentions what it returns ('whether the publishing agent is operational and any pending changes').

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: 'Use this to verify publishing is functioning or diagnose why resources are unavailable.' This clearly indicates the diagnostic/verification context and distinguishes it from tools that retrieve specific published resources, helping the agent choose appropriately among siblings.

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