publish_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the box centre and size come from the lidar cluster rather than a guess, and that the operation depends on a prior grounding. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting previous markers), error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and places the critical prerequisite in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

The tool has a single parameter that is unexplained, which is a major gap. Although the description covers the purpose, dependency, and data source, the unresolved 'label' parameter makes the tool incomplete for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the parameter gap remains.

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 sole parameter 'label' receives zero explanation in the description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it never mentions what 'label' represents or how to fill it. This is a critical omission that leaves the agent guessing about expected input.

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 verb 'publish' and the specific resource '/selected_object_marker', and ties it to the last grounded object. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing ground() and the lidar cluster data, making the tool's scope 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?

It explicitly instructs to call ground() on the unique referred object first, which is a clear prerequisite. It gives context for when to use it (after grounding) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the prerequisite effectively implies it.

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