telos.compatibility.doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explicitly declares read-only operation, zero auth, and no external side effects, plus the three possible verdicts (MATCH, DRIFT, UNVERIFIABLE). It stops short of describing cost, latency, or what triggers UNVERIFIABLE, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the behavioral profile. 'Compatibility receipts' appears in both sentences, a minor redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 tool, the essentials are covered: when to invoke it, that it is safe and unauthenticated, and what the three return states mean. Only the distinction from sibling doctor tools is absent, which keeps it short of fully self-contained.

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. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 scope: compatibility receipts covering CLI, MCP, protocol, manifest, and integration surfaces. It is clearly a diagnostic/verification tool, but it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling 'doctor' tools (telos.doctor, telos.ci.doctor, telos.presentation.doctor, etc.), leaving the agent to infer the domain split.

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 'Use when a host needs ... compatibility receipts' clause gives a clear trigger condition, which is a genuine usage cue. However, with roughly a dozen sibling doctor tools, no alternative is named and no exclusion ('use X instead for CI failures') is offered, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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