telos_score

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format and the receipt miniting but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or is read-only. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 well-structured with sections, front-loads the core purpose, and provides necessary details. While slightly lengthy, it earns its space given the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has three parameters, an output schema with nested objects, and a complex return, the description covers the verdict, scores, and receipt. It could add more detail on the dimension breakdown but is sufficient for an agent to understand core behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters via the Args section, explaining each parameter's role. However, it does not detail types or constraints beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool scores a proposed agent action against the active Purpose Anchor, returning a verdict and 6-dimension breakdown. It also mentions the minting of an integrity-hash receipt for verification by telos_verify, distinguishing it from 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?

The description implies the tool is used to score actions against the purpose anchor but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like telos_verify or telos_audit. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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