telos.native.control

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, zero-auth, and no external side effects, plus the shape of the return (JSON capability and verb catalog). It omits rate limits, idempotency, and whether results are cached, so it stops short of fully rich disclosure.

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 sentences, with the usage trigger front-loaded ahead of the behavioral and return-value facts. Every sentence contributes, with only mild redundancy between the capability framing in sentence one and the return-value statement in sentence three.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies enough: what the catalog covers, that it is a safe read with no auth or side effects, and what comes back. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing, though naming the sibling catalog tool would have closed the last 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 (empty object schema, additionalProperties false), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to add, and it does not attempt to invent any.

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 specific resource — the Telos native background-control capability catalog — and scopes it to two concrete actuation domains (Chrome DevTools Protocol for browser, Windows UI Automation for native apps). It is clearly not a mutation or evidence tool, though the verb is implicit (retrieve catalog) rather than stated outright, and no sibling such as telos.catalog is explicitly distinguished.

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 needs the ... capability catalog" states a clear trigger condition, so an agent knows the context that selects this tool. However, it offers no exclusions and does not name nearby alternatives (e.g., telos.catalog or telos.rendering.capabilities) that an agent might otherwise confuse with this one.

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