ledger_state_version

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.