Revival registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' is largely redundant restatement. The one genuinely additive line is that it returns JSON, but nothing is said about contents, size, or freshness of the registry.

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 before the safety and return characteristics. Every sentence is brief and there is no filler or redundancy beyond a small overlap with the 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?

With no parameters and annotations carrying the full safety profile, the remaining burden is describing the return value, and 'a JSON revival registry' is too thin to tell an agent what it will actually get. For a discovery/decision tool this leaves a meaningful gap, though the safety and usage picture is otherwise complete.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No misleading or missing parameter guidance exists because the schema is empty.

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 decision context (promoting older/siloed/frozen local tools into 'flagship lanes') but never states a concrete verb+resource — 'Returns a JSON revival registry' largely restates the name. The metaphor-heavy framing ('flagship lanes', 'revival') makes it hard to tell what the tool actually produces without opening it.

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 opening 'Use when deciding which older, siloed, or frozen local tools should be promoted' gives a clear trigger condition for invocation. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent has no guidance on when NOT to reach for this instead of a sibling like telos.catalog or telos.status.

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