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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses the fallback to reading a public repo without authentication, which is useful context. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with no arguments, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'Read-only' qualifier, then details the resource and return fields, and finally the fallback. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear account of what the tool returns (status, last seen, current task, note) and how it behaves on machines without the CLI. This is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and understand the result, though it does not detail the exact output structure or potential edge cases.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description confirms 'No arguments,' so the description fully covers the parameter semantics. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately notes the absence of arguments.

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 it is a read-only operation that retrieves Gear Ledger agents with presence heartbeat data. It specifies the resource (agents) and the verb (read), and lists the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ledger_state_get or ledger_tasks, which also appear to be read-only queries, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 usage: call this tool to get agent status and presence information. It notes there are no arguments and describes a fallback behavior for machines without the CWI ledger CLI. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools such as ledger_state_get or ledger_tasks, nor any exclusions.

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

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

The description explicitly discloses the read-only nature, the fallback to a public repo without auth, and the optional field selection behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well by covering safety (read-only), auth requirements (no auth in fallback), and data scope.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The read-only nature and resource are front-loaded, followed by the optional parameter behavior and the fallback context. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to filter, and what happens in different environments. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema and a simple JSON document, this is a minor gap.

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 the `fields` parameter. The description adds context by explaining that fields selects top-level keys and that omitting it returns the whole document, which aligns with the schema. This is baseline 3 territory since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('read-only') and resource ('full Gear Ledger state.json document'), and enumerates the document's contents (agents, tasks, presence, handoffs, approvals). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the full-document scope, while siblings like ledger_agents and ledger_tasks target specific subsets.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve the full ledger state document, with optional field filtering. It also provides a fallback behavior (reads public repo when CLI is unavailable), which helps an agent understand when the tool will work. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer them over this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only and takes no arguments, and it discloses a fallback behavior: on machines without the CWI ledger CLI, it reads the public CWI gear-ledger repo without auth. This covers the key behavioral traits. It does not mention error conditions or output format details, but for a simple read-only summary tool, this is sufficient.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output fields, while the second adds the fallback behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description covers all essential information: what it returns, the read-only nature, and the fallback environment. It does not specify the exact data types or response format, but the listed fields are sufficient for an agent to understand the return value. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description explicitly confirms 'No arguments,' which matches the schema. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies; the description adds no additional semantic burden.

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's purpose: it returns a version summary of the Gear Ledger with specific fields (version number, updated_at, repo sha, task count, agent count). It also declares 'Read-only' and 'No arguments,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ledger_state_get, ledger_agents, and ledger_tasks that focus on different aspects. The verb is implied but the resource and output are explicit.

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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. However, the name and content make it obvious that this is the tool for version summary, so usage is implied. No guidance is given on when not to use it or when to prefer siblings, but the tool's simplicity and self-evident purpose mitigate the lack.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, requires no auth when falling back to the public repo, and only that fallback occurs on machines without the CWI ledger CLI. It could additionally mention failure/error behavior, but the safety and access profile are well covered.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The read-only nature and core purpose are front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is added as a clearly separable second sentence.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch tool without an output schema, the description gives enough context about the response scope ('full detail', 'state history and artifacts') and the operational fallback behavior. It is not exhaustive about exact response formatting or error cases, but those are reasonable gaps for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented. The description reaffirms that task_id selects the task, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('one Gear Ledger task'), and the identifying key ('task_id'). It differentiates itself from the sibling 'ledger_tasks' by emphasizing singular full-detail retrieval including state history and artifacts.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the agent needs the full detail of exactly one Gear Ledger task by ID. It does not explicitly name alternate tools or exclusion conditions, but the singular vs. plural sibling split makes the intended usage evident.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by explicitly declaring 'Read-only' and repeating 'no auth, read-only' for the fallback path. It does not detail behavior when the CWI ledger CLI is present or describe pagination/limits, but the most important side-effect and auth traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only: list...', and each clause contributes distinct information: purpose, filter, and fallback/auth behavior. There is no filler or boilerplate.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the output type ('summaries'), the optional filter, and the auth/environment behavior. Without an output schema, explicit return-shape or pagination details would be the only meaningful addition.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema already documents the optional `state` parameter with an enum and a description. The description merely restates the enum values, so it adds no semantic value beyond the structured definition.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'list Gear Ledger tasks (summaries)', and the opening 'Read-only:' immediately sets expectations. The singular/plural contrast with siblings such as ledger_task_get and ledger_agents signals that this is the collection-listing entry point.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (to get task summaries) and how to refine it (optional state filter), and it documents the environment-specific fallback to the public repo with no auth. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the listing/summaries scope is enough to avoid obvious misrouting.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is verification-only, recomputes entry hashes, checks prev_hash linkage and chain head, and fails on tampered or corrupt ledgers. It does not describe the success return/exit behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences. Every clause adds operational detail—verification scope, checks performed, failure condition, default path, and parameter guidance—with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: exact verification checks, tamper/corruption failure behavior, default input, and how to override the default. The only notable omission is what a successful verification returns, but that does not block correct tool selection or invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful details such as 'absolute path' and the default file location, but its stated default (vendor/needledrop/example-ledger.json) is not clearly aligned with the schema's 'canonical CWI needle-drop.json', introducing some ambiguity about what happens with no file argument.

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 'Verify-only' and states a specific operation: checking hash-chain integrity of a cwi-needledrop/v1 ledger. It names the exact checks performed and explicitly contrasts with signing/sealing, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from the sibling ledger getters and trust_verdict.

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 gives clear usage context: verify a ledger, default to the vendored example, or pass an absolute file path for any other cwi-needledrop/v1 ledger. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to use instead, but the 'No signing, no sealing — verification only' note removes the main boundary confusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the engine NEVER invents a score, specifies the two special statuses ('insufficient-data' with null score, 'evidence-disputed'), instructs agents to report those statuses as-is, and mandates that inputs must be real, citable evidence. This level of disclosure exceeds expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, input structure, and behavioral caveats. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a concrete input template. Minor density in the middle sentence could be tightened, but there is no fluff.

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's complexity (nested input, no output schema), the description covers input structure and special statuses well. It stops short of describing the full successful response shape (e.g., the score value and evidence binding), but the mention of statuses and the 'report as-is' directive gives agents enough to handle the key edge cases. A short note on the normal payload would make it complete.

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 only says 'Engine input document per trust/spec.md section 3,' which is nearly meaningless without external specs. The description compensates by spelling out the exact expected object shape: {engine_version, subject:{agent_id,...}, context, observed_at, signals:{erc8004:[], needle_drop:[], first_spin:[]}}. This adds critical structural semantics 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: 'Score agent trust with the CWI Verdict Engine v1.0.0.' It also adds distinguishing traits ('deterministic, evidence-bound') that separate it from ledger or verification siblings. An agent can immediately identify this as the trust-scoring tool.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to score agent trust) and how to structure the input, but it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions for not using it. It does not reference sibling tools or state exclusions, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance to inference.

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