Compare loaded MCP servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects" largely restates structured data. What the description does add beyond annotations is the outcome model (JSON MATCH, DRIFT, or UNVERIFIABLE receipts), which is valuable given there is 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?

Two tight sentences; the usage trigger is front-loaded and the remaining clause covers behavior plus return values with no filler. Nothing here feels padded or redundant beyond a minor overlap with the annotations.

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-argument, no-output-schema tool the description covers trigger, safety posture, and outcome vocabulary, which is close to sufficient. It does not explain where the "expected" baseline comes from or how to act on DRIFT/UNVERIFIABLE, leaving a small interpretive gap.

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. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate.

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 verb (compare) and resource (loaded MCP servers against expected versions, tools, and probes), giving an agent a clear picture of the operation. It is largely distinguishable from siblings like telos.status or telos.server.manifest, though it never explicitly names an alternative to route between them.

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 must compare loaded MCP servers against expected versions, tools, and probes" is an explicit triggering condition, not an implied one. There are no exclusions or named alternative tools, 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.