telos.objective.monitorCheck whether proxy metrics drift from real agent or build objectives. Returns read-only JSON objective-monitor signals without auth or external side effects.
Use when checking whether proxy metrics are drifting away from real agent or build objectives. Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects. Returns JSON objective-monitor signals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only, no external side effects' largely repeats structured data. It does add one non-redundant fact ('zero-auth') and notes the return medium (JSON signals), but adds little behavioral depth beyond the annotations.
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 the use condition front-loaded and no wasted words. Every clause carries relevant information.
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?
With no output schema, the description should carry return-value burden, but 'Returns JSON objective-monitor signals' is vague about what those signals contain. For a zero-param monitoring tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about output shape.
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 are no parameter semantics to convey. Baseline score of 4 applies since there is nothing the description needs to compensate for.
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 monitoring concept: detecting when proxy metrics drift from real agent/build objectives. Clear verb-ish framing ('checking') and resource (objective-monitor signals), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like telos.measurement.layers.
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 checking whether proxy metrics are drifting away from real agent or build objectives' gives a concrete trigger condition. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions for when this tool should not be chosen over related diagnostic tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.