Id Ledger Query

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Query" weakly implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, whether results are paginated or capped, how the summary is derived, or whether the ledger is scoped by deck_dir. The return-value sentence adds little because an output schema already exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then parameter syntax, then the return. No filler, though the return-value sentence is largely redundant given the output schema.

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 two-parameter query tool with an output schema, this covers most of what an agent needs: the filter grammar, the resource, and the result shape. The notable gap is the required deck_dir parameter, whose role and relationship to the queried ledger is never stated.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does this well for filters, giving the delimiter and three concrete key=value examples (batch, status, type), but leaves deck_dir — the only required parameter — entirely unexplained, along with whether filters are ANDed or whether other keys are valid.

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?

"Query the ID ledger" states a specific verb and resource, and the description names what it returns (matching ID entries plus a summary). It does not differentiate against any sibling, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone why to pick it over tools like corpus_digest or review_batch.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage hint is that filters accept key=value pairs, which tells an agent how to call it but not when.

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