actions_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses read-only behavior, the salt-file dependency, per-side true/false/null results, and the condition under which a side is null. No hidden mutation or surprising side effects are implied.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by necessary clarifications. The quoted phrase is illustrative but slightly repetitive; overall every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only comparison tool, the description covers prerequisites, return semantics, and purpose. Since there is no output schema, the exact response structure (how the two sides are presented) is not fully specified, but the agent has enough to use it correctly.

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 0%, but the description defines seq as the action number and explains that inputs/output are the data whose salted digests are recomputed, with null when not passed. It does not specify exact string encoding, but it compensates for the bare 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?

States a specific action (check a retained transcript against action number seq) and mechanism (recompute salted digest and compare with stored hashes). The description names the exact hashes compared and the null semantics, making the tool's function unambiguous even among many siblings.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for entries whose content the ledger does not keep, it needs the ledger's salt file, and it is read-only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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