ipt_get_publication_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned but does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, mention permission requirements, or describe behavior when no publication exists. This leaves side effects and safety assumptions unclear.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and is easy to scan, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too terse to fully equip an agent. It does not specify the log output format, how 'latest publication' is determined, or how logLines changes the response. An agent would need to infer significant detail from the parameter schema and tool name.

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 only 50% (shortname is described, logLines is not). The phrase 'tail of the publication log' hints that logLines controls the number of lines, but the description does not explain shortname's role or explicitly map parameters. It only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource ('publication') and what is returned (status with enumerated states and a log tail). It uses domain-specific wording that helps distinguish it from generic siblings like ipt_get_status, though it could be more explicit about its exclusive scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ipt_get_status or ipt_publish. The description is purely declarative and gives no context on prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when another tool would be better.

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