publish_app

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals the repository scan, refusal on sensitive data, public readability of the result, and the pattern-filter limitation. This is rich, safety-relevant context that goes beyond simple intent.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, automatic scan/refusal, limitation of the scan, and a practical caution. It is front-loaded with the intended action and avoids fluff.

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 security-sensitive publish operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action, safety checks, behavioral limitation, and user guidance. It does not describe return values, but the output schema exists, so no major contextual gap is evident.

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 has one required string parameter, 'name', with no description. The tool description never mentions this parameter, and with 0% schema coverage it does not compensate; an agent must infer that 'name' refers to the app to publish.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Make an app reachable from outside without a login.' This clearly distinguishes publish_app from siblings like unpublish_app, list_apps, and delete_app.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to expose an app publicly without login. It also warns to read the app's content before requesting publication, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a direct 'when not to use' statement.

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