Telos tool catalog

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds the 'zero-auth' requirement and 'no external side effects', which are not encoded in the annotations, plus the return shape.

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 with the usage trigger front-loaded and the behavioral guarantees and return type following. No filler or 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 zero-param, no-output-schema read tool the description is nearly sufficient: it names the content ('tools and next actions') and the return format ('JSON catalog'). It stops just short of describing the catalog's structure, which would be the only remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema-side burden is nil and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing it as a pure read of the catalog.

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?

States a specific resource ('provider-neutral catalog of Project Telos MCP tools and next actions') and clarifies its scope as provider-neutral text. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like telos.status or telos.server.manifest, though the boundary against telos.server.manifest is not spelled out.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when a host needs the provider-neutral catalog...'), giving a clear condition for invocation. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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