publish_to_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and omits important details like prerequisites (e.g., a running ROS 2 environment), requirement to specify topic_type, behavior if the topic does not exist, or any blocking semantics. This is essentially no transparency beyond the bare act.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to mention important context such as the requirement to specify a topic_type, potential failure modes, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed for correct usage.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (message, topic_name, topic_type), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already handles the semantics, so no deduction is needed.

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 'Publish a message to a ROS 2 topic' uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('ROS 2 topic'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like call_service (services) and monitor_topic (reading messages).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monitor_topic or call_service. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'publish', which is sufficient for a clear action but lacks any contextual 'when' or 'why' guidance.

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