telos.ci.triage

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it states read-only behavior, absence of external side effects and writes, two execution modes (zero-auth offline fixtures vs. live `gh run` intake using local gh auth), and the three possible receipt verdicts. It does not explain what MATCH/DRIFT/UNVERIFIABLE mean semantically, which is the main remaining 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 sentences, all load-bearing: trigger, safety/auth profile, and return contract, with the usage trigger front-loaded. Slightly dense phrasing ('zero-auth offline fixture packets') costs a bit of readability but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps in to cover safety, auth requirements, and the shape of the return value, which is enough for a zero-parameter tool. An agent could still benefit from knowing what the verdicts imply or how the CLI modes are selected, but nothing essential to invocation 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not contradict or complicate the empty input contract.

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 verb (separate/triage) and resource (GitHub Actions gate failures vs. Node runtime migration warnings), which is far more concrete than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as telos.ci.doctor, so sibling discrimination is left to inference.

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?

"Use when a host needs to separate fatal GitHub Actions gate failures from Node runtime migration warnings before routing remediation" gives a clear trigger condition and workflow position. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools are provided, 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.