check_publish_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking 'auth status + strict quality gate', which gives some behavioral context about what gets evaluated. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single phrase that directly states the tool's function. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 implied by checking multiple blockers (auth and quality), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the checks entail, what constitutes a 'blocker', how results are returned, or error conditions. For a diagnostic tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter-specific information. Since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't have to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check publish blockers' with specific checks on 'auth status + strict quality gate'. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource (publish readiness). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_quality_gate' or 'auth_status', which appear to check similar aspects individually.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'publish blockers', suggesting this tool should be used before publishing (e.g., before 'publish_level'). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'validate_quality_gate' or 'auth_status', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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