marketplace_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool stores locally and broadcasts over the mesh via SMTP relay, giving insight into its side effects. However, it omits important details such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, or error handling, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise: it fronts the main purpose, uses a bullet list for kinds, and adds the storage/broadcast behavior in two short lines. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the core purpose, the kind taxonomy, and essential behavior (local storage + mesh broadcast). An output schema exists, so return values are handled separately. However, given the 9-parameter complexity, the lack of documentation for optional parameters and their interrelationships leaves some gaps, making it not fully complete.

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 zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'kind' parameter and its three values, which is valuable. However, the remaining eight parameters (tags, owner, payload, ttl_seconds, broadcast_to_mesh, etc.) receive no explanation, leaving most of the parameter semantics unresolved.

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 'Publish a listing to the global marketplace', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further elaborates the three listing kinds (mcp_server, knowledge, idea), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, pull, and export.

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 implies usage for sharing new content on the marketplace and explains the kind taxonomy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., export or outbox). It provides context but no exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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