publish_once

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('publish a single message') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'publish' entails in ROS context (e.g., network effects, persistence). The example hints at usage but doesn't clarify behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise example that illustrates usage without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, with no wasted words.

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 (ROS messaging with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on ROS-specific behaviors, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and limitations in this environment.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters in the example (topic, msg_type, msg) and shows a sample structure, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter roles (e.g., what msg_type formats are valid, topic naming conventions), leaving gaps in semantic understanding.

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 verb ('publish') and resource ('a single message to a ROS topic'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'publish_for_durations' or 'subscribe_once', which would require mentioning the 'once' aspect more clearly in relation to alternatives.

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 'publish_for_durations' or 'subscribe_once'. It includes an example but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and example alone.

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