telos.presentation.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 meaningful work: it declares the tool read-only, zero-auth, with no external side effects, and discloses the return vocabulary (MATCH, DRIFT, UNVERIFIABLE). It does not describe comparison scope or failure modes for UNVERIFIABLE, but the safety and output profile is well covered.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the safety profile and return values. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no padding.

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, annotation-free diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies the essential pieces: trigger, safety posture, and result categories. It stops short of explaining what a DRIFT receipt contains or what 'five-flagship' scoping means, which leaves minor gaps.

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 schema coverage is vacuous and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain arguments, and none are misleadingly implied.

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 domain (presentation parity across README, changelog, and brand assets) that clearly distinguishes it from sibling doctors like telos.ci.doctor, telos.accessibility.doctor, and telos.performance.doctor. The verb is implicit in the 'doctor' naming and the generic 'Use when' opener, and 'five-flagship' is unexplained jargon, keeping it short of a clean 5.

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?

It gives one trigger condition ('Use when a host needs ... presentation parity receipts'), which is a real usage cue. However, with seven other doctor-style siblings in the roster, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over them and no exclusions, so selection still requires inference.

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