ledger_state_get

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.