Read publish receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about persistence and the restart scenario, but 'never writes files' is redundant with the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes a clear side-effect guarantee. Every word earns its place with no 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 low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides the key scenario ('after AutoCAD restarts') and read-only guarantee, though it could have mentioned what the returned evidence contains or any prerequisites, but the schema covers parameters.

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% for the only parameter (manifest_path), with its own description about local path policy. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('persistent terminal publish evidence'), with the specific condition 'after AutoCAD restarts'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, stage, or queue publish jobs, and the explicit 'never writes files' reinforces its read-only nature.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: after AutoCAD restarts, when persistent evidence is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'never writes files' hints at a safe read-only alternative to write operations.

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