publishRepoState

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'REQUIRES signing', which is a clear auth prerequisite, and 'publish to Nostr' implies an external side effect. However, it does not disclose reversibility, response behavior, or other side effects, leaving some gap.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and includes only essential information (target, kind, signing requirement). No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, combined with 0% parameter coverage, means the description must explain all behavior and inputs. It leaves multiple required parameters undefined and does not mention return values or errors. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only hints at privkey via 'signing' but leaves repoId, refs, and relays entirely unexplained. This is a critical gap for a tool with 4 required parameters.

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 'Publish' and clearly identifies the resource 'repository state to Nostr (kind 30618)'. This differentiates it from sibling publish tools like publishRepoAnnouncement and publishBountyToNostr by specifying the exact event kind and target.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (beyond signing), or contrast with sibling publish tools. Usage context is only implied by the name and action.

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