telos.workflow

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only and zero-auth operation, bounds side effects to local subprocess reads, enumerates hard prerequisites (sibling gather/crucible/index/forum checkouts plus a local python interpreter), and specifies the failure mode (an UNVERIFIABLE envelope naming the missing dependency rather than running). That is exactly the disclosure an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the usage condition, then preconditions, then failure behavior, then return shape — a sensible priority order with little waste. It is dense with compound clauses, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 is present, so the description must (and does) sketch the return value: JSON receipts and verdict counts. Combined with the prerequisite and failure-mode disclosure, an agent has everything needed to decide whether this call can succeed.

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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add, and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (validating) and resource (the local five-flagship golden workflow from source checkouts), so an agent can tell it is a validation runner. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any of the many sibling telos.* doctor/status/ci tools, and 'five-flagship golden workflow' is jargon an agent must already understand.

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?

Opens with an explicit triggering condition ('Use when validating the local five-flagship golden workflow from source checkouts'), which is a clear when-to-call context. It names no alternatives and gives no when-not, so it falls short of the top band.

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