Native control catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description still adds value beyond them by stating 'zero-auth' and 'no external side effects' and by noting the return shape is a JSON catalog, which the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, then capability scope and safety. Nothing is redundant against the annotations and there is no filler.

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 parameterless, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call it, what it returns, and its safety posture. Only a brief note on the catalog's structure or size would improve it further.

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 and the baseline is 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 concrete verb+resource ('returns a JSON capability and verb catalog') and names the specific actuation domains, Chrome DevTools Protocol and Windows UI Automation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from generic look-alikes such as telos.catalog or telos.server.manifest, so an agent still has to infer which catalog it needs.

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 Telos native background-control capability catalog' gives a clear triggering condition, and the enumerated device/learn verbs add scope. No exclusion or alternative-naming guidance is provided, so 4 rather than 5.

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