telos.admission.telemetryDesign trace fields that separate action admission from verification verdicts, returning a read-only JSON telemetry convention with zero auth and no side effects.
Use when designing trace fields that keep action admission separate from verification verdicts. Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects. Returns a JSON telemetry convention.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description mostly restates those ('Read-only... no external side effects') and only adds 'zero-auth' plus the return type; with annotations in place a 3 is appropriate.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the safety and return notes. Nothing is padded, though the safety sentence largely duplicates the annotations.
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-param, read-only tool returning a static convention, the description covers the trigger, the safety envelope, and the return type. No output schema exists, so a brief note on the convention's shape would help, but it is adequate.
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, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 names a specific return artifact — a JSON telemetry convention for admission trace fields — with the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'JSON telemetry convention'. It is clear what the tool yields, though it makes no effort to distinguish itself from the many sibling meta/inspection tools.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when designing trace fields that keep action admission separate from verification verdicts'), which is genuinely actionable. However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not-to-use condition against the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.