publish_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what happens on failure, whether the connection must be active, whether publishing creates the topic if it doesn't exist, persistence guarantees, or any side effects. For a message publication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though it could arguably be slightly longer to cover behavioral details without losing its tight structure.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate with more behavioral and contextual detail. It does not mention whether the topic must already exist, whether the message is serialized in a particular format, error conditions, or the return behavior. Given the nested headers object and zero annotation/ouput-schema coverage, this is under-specified.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (headers, message, topicName, connectionId) with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. The nested 'headers' object lacks detail about expected key-value types within the schema, but the description doesn't address that either.

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 topic' uses a specific verb (Publish) and resource (topic) to convey the core action clearly. It distinguishes from the sibling 'send_message' adequately but does not explicitly differentiate, and there are several related tools (subscribe_topic, list_topics) that share topic context, so while clear it doesn't fully set itself apart.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, there is a sibling tool 'send_message' whose exact relationship is unclear - are they the same, or one for queues vs topics? The description offers no context on when to choose publish_message over send_message or how it differs from consuming/browsing messages.

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