dts_publish

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

Provides detailed behavioral context: success yields .3dt tile plus DataInfor.txt, failure requires reading error.band and log, with UDP log carrying more specific messages. It also discloses that domPath is mandatory despite appearing optional, and that geographic coordinates fail with specific error codes.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by parameter examples, workflow requirements, success/failure behavior, and alternative tool guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, required inputs, success/failure outputs, error debugging, and even alternative tool guidance. This fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret results for the primary verified path.

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 description adds substantial meaning for flags (93 flags, format example, mandatory domPath), strict (experimental flags), and pipeline (verified 'road' workflow). However, it does not explicitly clarify outpath or timeout, though their names and schema types are self-explanatory. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a strong but not perfect compensation.

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 states 'Run a DTS Engine publish pipeline and report artifacts' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from siblings by directing OSGB users to dts_publish_osgb and error-code handling to dts_explain_error.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use: the verified workflow is pipeline='road', lists prerequisites (projected shapefile, DOM raster), and alternative tool guidance for OSGB and error explanation. It also explains when to set strict=False for experimental flags.

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