chat_get_cockpit_ledger_detail

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden, and it does so exceptionally: it explicitly states the tool 'only reads local IDE companion ledger JSON files and never mutates Unreal, calls providers, or spends credits.' This clearly sets safety expectations and bounds side effects.

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 and front-loaded: the one-sentence summary leads, followed by packet contents, safety guarantees, structured Args, KB reference, and an example. Every section earns its place, and the text avoids filler or redundancy.

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?

All five optional parameters are documented with usage conditions, the read-only/no-cost behavior is disclosed, the output schema exists so return values are covered, and a KB pointer and example are included. For a read-only ledger query tool with no annotations, this is complete and actionable.

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 input schema provides only titles and defaults (0% description coverage), so the description must fully compensate. It does: each parameter is explained with meaningful conditions, such as 'session: Chat/companion session name to match when ledger_path is omitted' and 'limit: Maximum recent events to return when event_index is omitted.' This adds semantic value well 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return bounded IDE companion ledger detail for the MCP Chat cockpit.' It further lists the packet contents (recent ledger events, artifacts, artifact kinds, phase index data, latest status, and latest work order), making the tool's function concrete and distinct from broader chat or cockpit tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat_get_cockpit_overview or chat_poll_messages. The session/ledger_path parameter notes hint at a workflow ('from a cockpit overview or session list'), but no explicit inclusion/exclusion guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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