mesh_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by stating the return contract (topic and duration_ms), the default host, and that publication is meant for other parties' agents to react. It does not cover delivery guarantees, failure modes, or auth requirements, but the core calling behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary action, then payload guidance, return values, and default host. Every sentence adds a distinct and useful fact; there is no filler.

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 4-parameter publish tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return contract, default endpoint, payload naming guidance, and purpose. It could mention error or failure behavior, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful value by prescribing fact naming conventions and giving examples ('module_generated', 'capability_announced'). It does not add much for topic, host, or realm parameters, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Publish an integration fact to a mesh topic', and adds a clear purpose ('so other parties' agents can react'). The business-verb guidance and 'never CRUD' rule distinguish it from generic data operations. An agent can tell this is an event-publishing tool rather than a generic write or call tool.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use framing: publish integration facts for other agents to react to, and instructs to use business verbs rather than CRUD. This is a strong selection rule, though it does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead when CRUD or request/response is intended.

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