publish_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the useful wrapper/deprecation context but says nothing about side effects, auth needs, or whether the event is broadcast to subscribers — gaps that matter for an event-publishing tool with no output schema.

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 tight clauses with zero waste; the core purpose and the redirection to the preferred tool are both front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a thin backward-compat wrapper with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed to choose correctly. It could go slightly further by noting the event is fired into the same event stream as publish_event, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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%, so all eight parameters (metrics, summary, task_id, blockers, next_steps, project_id, key_decisions, artifacts_created) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a work summary event') and immediately identifies itself as a convenience wrapper around publish_event with type=summary. An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling publish/list tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer publish_event with event_type='summary' and frames this tool as backward-compatibility only. This is a rare case where the when-not-to-use guidance is stated outright with the named alternative.

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