Creative kernels

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive status, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: zero-auth (no credential setup needed) and no external side effects. It stops short of describing the kernel format or any size/rate limits.

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 tight sentences: trigger condition first, safety/auth profile second, return type last. No filler, every sentence carries information.

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-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at the structure of the returned JSON kernels.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could clarify about inputs.

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 states a resource (deterministic creative primitives) and enumerates concrete use domains: dithering, pixel sorting, plotter paths, and clustered-light bins. An agent gets a clear sense of what it returns, though the sibling telos.creative.engine is not distinguished from it.

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 deterministic creative primitives are needed for...' gives clear triggering context with specific examples. It offers no when-not guidance and does not name an alternative, so the boundary with telos.creative.engine remains implicit.

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