telos.admission.telemetry

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 discloses key behavioral traits: read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects. These are important for an AI agent to understand the tool's safety profile. The description does not contradict any annotations, and it adds value beyond structured fields.

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 three sentences: first states usage, second states behavioral constraints, third states return type. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. However, it only vaguely states 'Returns a JSON telemetry convention' without specifying what fields or structure the convention includes. More detail about the return value would improve completeness for an AI agent.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not.

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: 'Use when designing trace fields that keep action admission separate from verification verdicts.' It identifies the resource ('telemetry convention') and the verb ('design'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telos.action.receipt' or 'telos.context.envelope', which may also deal with trace fields or telemetry.

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 provides explicit usage context ('Use when designing trace fields...') and lists constraints ('Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects'). It does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, but the given context is clear enough for an AI to decide when to invoke it.

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