agentbus_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action ('append') but does not mention required authentication, idempotency behavior, potential side effects, or failure modes. The array of metadata fields (auth_token, idempotency_key, etc.) suggests additional behavioral context that is left unexplored.

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, clear sentence of ten words, efficiently communicating the primary purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and lacks extraneous content. While it is very short, it is not overly terse to the point of meaninglessness, earning a high but not perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description is markedly underspecified. It does not explain what constitutes an event, how the workspace context is established, or what the output schema contains. The optional parameters (trace_id, auth_token, idempotency_key) hint at distributed tracing and delivery guarantees, but no such context is provided, making the tool difficult to use correctly without additional assumptions.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. The required parameters (topic, payload) are not explained, nor are any of the eight optional parameters. The description's phrase 'workspace event log' only faintly implies that topic and payload constitute an event, but it fails to add any semantic value beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('workspace event log'), clearly indicating the operation's scope and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle locks, status, and approvals. It is concise and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's primary function.

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 clear usage context: use this tool to append an event to the workspace log. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are in different domains (locking, polling, reviewing), so the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to invoke this tool.

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