telos.workstation.substrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden — and it does declare the important traits: read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects, and a JSON return shape. This is a genuinely useful safety/auth disclosure, though rate limits, error behavior, and scope of what the register contains are unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the safety/return facts following. No filler, though the dense internal jargon slightly reduces immediate legibility.

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 exists, so the description must characterize the return value; it only says “JSON workstation substrate register” without what fields or aggregates it contains. Read-only status is covered, but an agent still can't predict the response payload.

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; the 0-parameter baseline applies.

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 identifies the resource domain (“local workstation repositories and private/local lane families”) and the output (“JSON workstation substrate register”), but the core action is vague jargon — “aggregate intake” and “substrate register” don't tell an agent plainly what operation is performed. It is distinguishable in flavor from siblings like telos.proof or telos.ci.doctor, but not by a concrete verb+resource.

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…” supplies a use condition, which is more than nothing. However, no alternative sibling tool is named, and no exclusion condition is given, so the agent must guess whether this or telos.catalog/status covers its need.

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