what_it_knew

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly marks the operation as read-only and reveals that it reads from the chain rather than memory, and it lists the returned data components. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but it covers the key behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place, defining the input, the output components, the source of truth, and the read-only safety property with no redundancy.

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 a single integer parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it. It conveys the input, the result contents, and the read-only nature, making it functionally complete for an agent, though it omits minor details like invalid sequence handling.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does: 'seq' is an action number in the action ledger, which directly explains the meaning of the integer parameter. It could add valid range or how to determine seq, but the core semantic is present.

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, unique function: to return what the agent knew at a given action ledger entry, including the state digest, recall ids, and their provenance. It also contrasts with memory ('from the chain, not from memory'), which distinguishes it from related retrieval tools.

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 implies when to use it: to determine which facts were current at a historical action sequence. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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