telos.context.envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects.' It also states the return format. This is comprehensive for a tool with no parameters or side effects.

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 concise sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence provides the use case, the second sentence declares behavioral traits and return type. No wasted words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what it does, its side effects, and output format. It is fully complete for effective use.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 provides 'readable source refs, budgets, and receipt chains' for 'large-workspace context'. It specifies the return type (JSON context-envelope). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like telos.context.pack, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 begins with 'Use when...' providing explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context signal of sibling tools is available for the agent to compare.

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