telos.accessibility.doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' covers the safety profile, and it discloses the outcome vocabulary (MATCH, DRIFT, UNVERIFIABLE). It does not explain what distinguishes DRIFT from UNVERIFIABLE, leaving a small inference 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?

Three tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded, then safety profile, then return shape. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to invoke it, that it is safe and auth-free, and what the result tokens mean at a high level. Nothing material is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter noise, and instead spends its words on scope and return semantics.

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?

Specific verb (implicit 'diagnose' via doctor) plus resource (accessibility) and an enumerated scope: static HTML, reduced-motion, keyboard, and canvas-fallback checks. The scope is narrow enough to distinguish it from siblings like performance.doctor, compatibility.doctor, and presentation.doctor without opening any schema.

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?

States the triggering condition explicitly ('Use when a host needs ... receipts for Telos Studio surfaces'), which is clear context. It does not name when-not to use it or point to an alternative sibling doctor, so it falls just short of the top band.

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