get_publishers_for_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, what format the list returns, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a helpful example. The example is relevant and adds value without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, permissions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'topic' parameter should be a topic name (e.g., '/cmd_vel'), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain topic format constraints or provide full parameter documentation, keeping it at baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Get list of nodes') and resource ('publishing to a specific topic'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subscribers_for_topic' or 'get_topics', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'get_subscribers_for_topic' or 'get_topics'. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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