Research claim proof packet

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond the schema by asserting 'zero-auth' and 'no external side effects beyond local subprocess reads', disclosing the auth requirement and the subprocess-read behavior.

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 'Use when' trigger and ending with the return type. The middle sentence is a dense comma-list of packet components, but each item earns its place by defining the packet's contents.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must cover both invocation and return, which it does by describing the joined components and stating it returns a JSON packet. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit sibling routing for a family of four proof tools.

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 is no parameter semantics to convey and the schema cannot be under-documented. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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 resource ('research-claim proof packet') and enumerates the artifacts it joins (source provenance, bounded claim, negative control fixture, attempt records, recomputed digests, derived promotion rung), which is far beyond a tautology. It reads as distinct from telos.proof.visual and telos.proof.build via the 'research-claim' framing, but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 the fixture-backed research-claim proof packet' gives an implied trigger condition, but it is circular and names no alternatives or exclusions. With three sibling proof tools (telos.proof, telos.proof.visual, telos.proof.build), the absence of routing guidance is a clear gap.

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