tteop_build_envelope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: computation of Yield, Leverage, Velocity, output_fraction, and log_leverage; no data submission or persistence; and a complete JSON envelope return value. It does not cover edge cases or error behavior, but the important side-effect and output properties are explicit.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then computed metrics, then side-effect behavior, then return format. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is built, what is computed, that nothing is persisted, and that the result is a complete JSON envelope. Parameter details are fully handled by the schema descriptions; only minor gaps around required-parameter behavior remain, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eleven parameters. The description adds useful context by framing inputs as token counts and naming the computed metrics, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond the baseline provided by the 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?

Description names a specific verb (Build), a specific resource (TTEOP v0.1-draft schema-conforming telemetry envelope), and concrete inputs (token counts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like tteop_validate_envelope by describing a build action rather than a validation action.

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 implies the use case: construct an envelope from token counts. It also provides helpful context by stating that no data is submitted or persisted, but it never explicitly names when to use this tool instead of tteop_validate_envelope or tteop_run_conformance, nor gives exclusion conditions.

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