Model foundry register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'zero-auth' and 'no external side effects' are not derivable from the annotations, and it discloses the return type (a JSON contract). It stops short of describing the contract's content or any 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the trigger first, then the safety/return profile. The scope enumeration in the first sentence is jargon-dense but each item earns its place as a coverage claim.

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?

No input schema, no output schema, and annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description is the only source of what 'a JSON model-foundry contract' actually contains — and it doesn't say. For a zero-input tool whose entire value is the returned contract, that is a meaningful gap, and there is no routing guidance against sibling registers.

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 for a 0-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 names a domain (model foundry) and enumerates scope areas (hosted, local, open-weight, post-training, verifier gates), and states it returns a JSON model-foundry contract. But it never states a concrete action verb beyond 'planning', and with 40 sibling telos.* tools it offers no differentiation from neighbors like telos.learning.forge or telos.catalog. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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 planning model-foundry work' gives a trigger condition, so guidance is implied rather than absent. However, the trigger is essentially circular (use the model-foundry tool when doing model-foundry work), and no alternative sibling tool is named for adjacent tasks. No when-not guidance either.

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