stream_publish_event

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

The description begins with '[READ]', which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=false, indicating the tool performs writes. This is a serious inconsistency. Although the description adds context like 'NOT a control write' and the return dict, the contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 well-structured and concise: a summary, behavioral clarification, dependency notice, argument descriptions, return type, and an example. Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, returns, and an example. It does not mention failure modes or detailed connection prerequisites beyond pip install, but for a publish tool it provides sufficient context, especially since an output schema is absent but the return dict is described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the required parameters subject and event, and groups connection parameters (servers/token/tls/subject_prefix/publisher) referencing stream_publish. It does not detail each connection parameter individually, leaving some semantics to be inferred or looked up elsewhere.

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 and specifically states the tool publishes one computed event (RCA verdict/alarm) to a NATS message bus. It distinguishes itself from control writes and sibling tools by emphasizing that this is egress of already-computed findings, not a control write.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for computed findings) and explicitly states what it is NOT (a control write). It also points to stream_publish for bus connection details, but it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide a full when-not-to-use list.

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