Create publish operations report

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning 'restartable page' (pagination behavior) and 'suggest safe next actions' (advisory output). The 'never writes' reinforces the read-only annotations without contradicting them. It does not detail error handling or prerequisites, but annotations already cover safety.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key safety note. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's role, pagination, and non-write behavior. It doesn't explain return values (unnecessary with output schema) or edge cases, but the description combined with schema and annotations is sufficient for a straightforward read-only list-style tool.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (limit, after_job_id), including the cursor pattern. The tool description adds the concept of 'restartable page', which aligns with after_job_id, but does not provide new parameter-specific information. With schema coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 function: 'Summarize staged jobs as a restartable page and suggest safe next actions.' It uses a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('staged jobs'), and the phrase 'never writes' differentiates it from mutation tools. The name and title also align, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when you need an overview of staged jobs and safe next actions, and the 'never writes' note sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools like audit_publish_outputs, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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