telos.proof.build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects beyond local subprocess reads, and details the internal recomputation and required negative fixture. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

The first sentence is a dense run-on packing many technical clauses, making it hard to parse. It is front-loaded with the use condition, but could be split for better clarity and readability.

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?

The description states it returns a JSON build proof packet but gives no detail on packet structure, and with no output schema this leaves the agent guessing about the return format. It otherwise covers purpose and behavior adequately for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.

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 the specific resource (fixture-backed build scientific-runtime proof packet) and its key computed elements (conserved-quantity invariant and conservation drift), distinguishing it from generic proof siblings by the scientific-runtime and build qualifiers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with telos.proof.research or telos.proof.visual, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

Provides a clear condition for use ('Use when a host needs...') but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. The condition is specific to this tool's output, giving clear context without exclusions.

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