telos.showcase.scout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key safety traits: read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects. It also states the return type (JSON scout results). It omits determinism, fixture-availability failure modes, and whether results are cached or stable across calls.

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 with no waste; the trigger condition is front-loaded and the safety profile and return type follow. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the trigger, the safety envelope, and the return type. The only gap is that 'JSON scout results' leaves the response shape unstated, which matters slightly given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents 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?

The description names the specific artifact produced — fixture-backed OSS Proof Showcase candidate rankings — which is distinct from sibling proof/rendering/measurement tools. The verb is implied rather than stated ('scout'), but the resource and output are concrete enough for an agent to identify the tool's role.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when a host needs fixture-backed OSS Proof Showcase candidate rankings before public patch work,' which also encodes ordering relative to patch work. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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