Check the flagship workflow

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it declares read-only and zero-auth (matching annotations), but crucially discloses the failure mode — it returns an UNVERIFIABLE envelope naming the missing dependency rather than failing opaquely. It also discloses the dependency requirements (sibling checkouts + local python) and the return shape (JSON receipts and verdict counts). The annotations already cover safety profile; the description earns credit for the dependency preconditions and graceful-degradation behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences: trigger/scope, behavioral properties and failure mode, then return shape. Each sentence carries distinct load — no repetition, no filler. The 'use when' clause is front-loaded and the fallback behavior is stated before the return format, which is a sensible ordering.

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, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions (sibling checkouts, python), the failure mode (UNVERIFIABLE envelope), and return content (JSON receipts, verdict counts). An agent has enough to know when to call it and what to expect. No output schema exists, so return values are described at a high level only — adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per the rules. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly doesn't invent any. Nothing to penalize, but also no opportunity to exceed the baseline for a no-param tool.

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 specific verification action ('validating the local five-flagship golden workflow from source checkouts') and the resource is clearly the flagship workflow. It distinguishes itself from sibling doctor/status tools by specifying this is a golden-path validation across five specific source checkouts. It's clear what the tool does, though 'five-flagship golden workflow' is somewhat idiosyncratic terminology that only makes sense within this ecosystem.

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 provides a 'use when' trigger ('validating the local five-flagship golden workflow from source checkouts'), which gives clear usage context. However, it doesn't contrast with any of the ~40 sibling tools — there are many doctor/checker siblings (telos.doctor, telos.ci.doctor, telos.presentation.doctor, etc.) and the description never explains how this differs or when to pick it over them. The usage trigger is there but lacks the alternative differentiation the dimension rewards.

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