superpos_publish_event

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains broadcast effects (subscribers receive the event) but omits details like idempotency, persistence, or rate limits. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context about return codes.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. The core action and effect are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple publish tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary use case but lacks parameter details. It is minimally adequate but incomplete without explaining hive_id and payload semantics.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only gives an example for event_type, leaving hive_id (nullable, default null) and payload (arbitrary object) unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to properly populate arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('broadcast') and identifies the resource ('event to the hive'), with a concrete example ('deploy.finished'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like poll_events (listening) and create_task (task operations).

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 implies usage context: when you want to notify other agents subscribed to an event type. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the intent is clear.

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