telos.revival.registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears transparency. It discloses read-only, zero-auth, and no external side effects, which are crucial for safe invocation. It also states the return type (JSON revival registry), though details of the registry structure are omitted.

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 key use case. No redundant information. Every sentence is essential: purpose, behavioral traits, output format. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage guidance, safety, and return type. It could be improved by describing the registry's contents, but overall it is adequate for an agent to decide usage.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to help decide which older, siloed, or frozen local tools should be promoted into flagship lanes. It specifies the resource (revival registry) and distinguishes from siblings by its focus on revival. However, it could more explicitly state that the tool returns the list of candidates.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use: when deciding which tools to promote. It also notes the tool is read-only and zero-auth, indicating safe usage. No alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned, but the sibling context implies differentiation.

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