publish_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Publish' implies a write/side-effecting operation, but nothing is said about delivery guarantees, persistence, whether an exchange must pre-exist, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loaded on the action. It is arguably too terse for its job, but it is not padded or poorly structured.

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?

For a 5-parameter, side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what an agent needs: whether the exchange must exist, vhost semantics, confirmation of delivery, and error behavior. The schema covers inputs but nothing covers operation behavior.

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 100%, so all five parameters including defaults for vhost, exchange and content_type are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: publish a message to an exchange. An agent can distinguish it from consume_message and the create_*/list_* siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The purpose is clear but the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the exchange must already exist, how vhost selection interacts with the default), and no statement of when to prefer consume_message or another tool. Only the bare action is given.

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