build_publication_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states 'Never writes to a repository,' which is a strong side-effect guarantee, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it reads from the filesystem, or how it handles errors or missing files.

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?

Two brief sentences with no filler. The core action and the key side-effect constraint are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and process.

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 five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple siblings, yet the description provides minimal workflow context. It does not explain the return value, how to structure metadata, or how destinations are used, leaving substantial gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only vaguely gestures at 'metadata' and 'file manifest.' It does not explain rootDir, include, exclude, or destinations, leaving an agent to guess their roles despite five parameters and nested objects.

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 names a specific action ('Build') and a concrete deliverable ('canonical metadata + file manifest') plus a distinguishing output ('package SHA-256 identity'). It is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools like build_file_manifest, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as build_file_manifest, create_draft, or validate_deposition. 'Never writes to a repository' is a behavioral constraint, not a usage guideline, and there is no mention of prerequisites or workflow context.

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