ledger_tasks

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.