agentbus_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements (despite the 'auth_token' parameter), rate limits, or side effects beyond appending. A single sentence is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 8-word sentence, which is too terse. While concise, it lacks necessary details and structure (e.g., separate sections for usage, parameters). The minimalism hinders utility.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema) and the minimal description, the tool description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters (topic, payload, auth_token, etc.). It does not explain what topic or payload should contain, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter values.

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 'Append one event to the workspace event log' uses a specific verb 'append' and clearly identifies the resource (event log) and action (adding an event), distinguishing it from siblings like 'agentbus_poll' (read events) and 'agentbus_status' (check status).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. It only states the action without context.

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