telos.model.foundry

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it declares the tool is read-only, requires zero authentication, has no external side effects, and returns a JSON contract. This is complete and transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides every necessary detail: when to use, what it does, behavioral traits, and return format. It is fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema by stating the tool's usage context and return type, justifying a score of 5.

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's purpose: planning model-foundry work across multiple gates. It uses a specific verb ('planning') and resource ('model-foundry work'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique domain and return type ('JSON model-foundry contract').

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 explicitly says 'Use when planning model-foundry work', providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative sibling tools for comparison, which would make it a 5.

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