inspect_audit_ledger

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

The description discloses the non-destructive nature ('Read') and the verification behavior ('verify the chain') that checks signatures. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the read-only and verification aspects are transparent given no annotations.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, clearly stating the action, resource, and purpose.

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?

The description is complete enough to invoke the tool: it names the resource, the action, and the parameter. It does not specify return format, but since there is no output schema and the operation is a simple read, this is acceptable. The mention of 'synthetic scoped reference tools' is slightly ambiguous but not critical.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described with its meaning ('Max trailing entries') and default value (50). Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds clarity 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'CHP-signed deny / authorize / execute ledger' with the action 'verify the chain'. It also mentions a secondary purpose of listing synthetic scoped reference tools, but the primary purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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?

Provides some context about reading and verifying the ledger but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions listing synthetic scoped reference tools, which hints at a use case, but lacks explicit conditions or selection criteria.

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