list_publish_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List product publish requests' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 has parameters (page, limit) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the paginated nature of the listing, what fields are returned, or how results are structured. For a list tool with pagination, this lack of contextual detail makes it inadequate for full understanding.

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%, with clear documentation for 'page' and 'limit' parameters including defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 'List product publish requests' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('product publish requests'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar list tools like 'list_products' or 'get_publish_request' among the siblings, leaving room for ambiguity about its specific scope.

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. With siblings like 'get_publish_request' (likely for a single request) and 'list_products' (for products themselves), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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