Workstation intake register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' largely restates that, adding only the auth angle and the 'public-safe' guarantee — mild incremental value, but no disclosure of aggregation scope, latency, or result determinism.

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 'Use when' trigger and closing with the return shape. No filler, though the middle sentence partially duplicates 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 output schema, the single line 'Returns a JSON workstation substrate register' is the only hint at results, and it does not say what the register contains or its granularity. For a zero-input read tool this is adequate to invoke, but not enough to know what the caller will receive.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

It names a resource (a 'workstation substrate register') and an implied action (registering/aggregating intake), but the phrasing is dense jargon ('public-safe aggregate intake', 'private/local lane families') rather than a specific verb+resource. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbours like telos.admission.telemetry or telos.context.envelope, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over its many siblings.

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?

'Use when a host needs public-safe aggregate intake for local workstation repositories' gives a triggering condition, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions (e.g. when to prefer telos.admission.telemetry), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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