telos.operator.doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' (safety profile) and discloses the tri-state return vocabulary (MATCH, DRIFT, UNVERIFIABLE). It stops short of detailing what triggers DRIFT or how the receipts are scoped per artifact.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use when' trigger, then safety profile, then return values. No filler, though the artifact list in sentence one is a dense comma pile.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, safety characteristics, and return-value vocabulary, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret it. Minor gap: it does not explain how this doctor differs in output from its sibling doctors.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty with additionalProperties false and the description correctly introduces no argument semantics.

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 diagnostic verb and resource (the Telos operator surface) and enumerates the artifacts it inspects: README, status, catalog, manifest, CI, and discoverability. This differentiates it from the many sibling doctor tools by naming the 'operator surface' scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with telos.doctor or telos.ci.doctor.

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 'Use when a host needs ... receipts' clause gives a trigger condition, but offers no when-not guidance and names no alternatives among the numerous sibling doctor/diagnostic tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary itself.

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