ledger_agents

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.