Publish dry run

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe, network-touching read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the external toolchain invocations, the fact it enumerates would-be-published files, and that it performs junk/secret flagging.

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?

A single densely-packed sentence where each clause earns its place (dry run, file listing, junk/secrets). Front-loaded with the primary action; only the parenthetical toolchain examples risk being mildly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for return content and does so by naming the file list and junk/secret flags. It is adequate for a one-parameter read-only tool; finer details like exit codes or per-ecosystem output shape are omitted but not critical.

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?

Only one parameter (dir) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it with path semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific action (run the registry dry run) with concrete underlying commands for npm, twine, and cargo, plus the two outputs (file list, junk/secret flags). It is clearly distinct from publish_package by being a dry run, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 'dry run' framing implies this belongs before an actual publish, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (publish_package, run_checks, scan_secrets are all plausible neighbors). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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