Reach action menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' clause largely repeats structured data. However, the description adds genuinely new behavior: credentials are checked, it remembers what was already read, and it resolves the memory file from `memory` or TELOS_REACH_MEMORY.

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, then the safety/behavior and return summary. Efficient, though the safety clause partially duplicates annotations.

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?

No output schema, but the description at least states it 'Returns a JSON menu.' For a tool whose primary input concept is the tier, leaving the T0–T5 semantics unexplained is a real gap, even with annotations covering the safety profile.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%. The description meaningfully explains the `memory` parameter's resolution order (explicit `memory` vs. TELOS_REACH_MEMORY env var), but the `tier` parameter – the central concept of the tool – is only gestured at as 'grant tier' with no explanation of what T0–T5 mean.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns the 'reach verbs its grant tier allows' as a JSON menu. An agent can tell it is a discovery/menu tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like telos.reach.api or telos.reach.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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use when an agent needs the reach verbs its grant tier allows.' That is explicit context, but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives for when a different reach tool is the better pick.

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