Context envelope

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

The description largely restates what annotations already declare: 'Read-only' echoes readOnlyHint=true and 'no external side effects' echoes openWorldHint=false. The only marginal additions are 'zero-auth' and the mention of a convention return, which are thin for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the trigger condition leads. Ordering is slightly unusual in leading with usage rather than purpose, but nothing 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 this is adequate: it states when to call it and roughly what comes back. But 'context-envelope convention' stays abstract and the description does not clarify what the envelope actually contains or how it differs from the sibling pack/receipt tools.

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 the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter detail.

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 conveys content ('readable source refs, budgets, and receipt chains') and a return type ('a JSON context-envelope convention'), but never states a clear verb or resource that distinguishes it from close siblings like telos.context.pack, telos.action.receipt, or telos.loop.ledger. An agent gets a topic, not a differentiated purpose.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when large-workspace context needs...'), which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and provides no when-not guidance, leaving the agent to guess against a crowded set of context/receipt siblings.

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