telos.performance.doctor

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, zero-auth, no external side effects, and the shape of the output verdicts (MATCH, DRIFT, UNVERIFIABLE). It stops short of explaining what triggers DRIFT versus UNVERIFIABLE or any cost/rate considerations.

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 trigger condition and then the safety/return profile. Dense and largely jargon ('receipts'), but every clause contributes and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately fills the gap by naming the possible verdicts. For a zero-param, read-only diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; only the meaning of the verdict states is left implicit.

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 describe and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 diagnostic domain (static Studio performance, efficiency, asset-budget, and embedding receipts) with a clear verb sense from 'doctor' that is established by the sibling convention. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the many other *.doctor tools by domain scope, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 static Studio performance... receipts' gives a clear triggering condition, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among the ~15 sibling *.doctor tools (ci.doctor, accessibility.doctor, compatibility.doctor, etc.). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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