pilot_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that subscribers receive messages asynchronously, that the operation requires trust, that it uses the same authenticated tunnel as send-message, and that it will fail on untrusted peers. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond just the tool's existence.

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 compact: two sentences plus a trust warning. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the most important usage detail (trust requirement) without any filler. Every sentence serves a distinct 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 flat string params, no output schema) and strong annotation-free behavioral context (async, trust), the description is largely complete. It could be more complete by noting the return behavior (e.g., it returns success/failure immediately) or whether messages are persisted, but these are minor gaps for a pub/sub publish operation.

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 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for peer, topic, and message. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Publish a message to a topic on a peer's pub/sub channel.' It clearly distinguishes the publish action from siblings like pilot_subscribe (which receives) and pilot_broadcast (which likely fans out to all peers). The example of publishing 'build-complete' further anchors the tool's role.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use for event-driven agent coordination' with a concrete example. It also gives a critical prerequisite: 'call pilot_trust_check(peer) first.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as pilot_broadcast or pilot_send for other messaging patterns, so it falls short of a 5.

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