quantum_config_census

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It declares the tool read-only, details that it uses ledger_data (AccountRoot Flags/RegularKey/Balance) without per-account transaction scanning, clarifies that figures are network statistics, and states it is heavy, rate-limited, and paced. This fully discloses behavior and constraints.

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 concise but slightly dense, using capitalization and phrases like 'via ledger_data (AccountRoot Flags/RegularKey/Balance)' that could be trimmed. It front-loads the main purpose effectively. Minor verbosity prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description explains the tool's output conceptually (percentages of accounts and supply) and its data source, but it fails to describe any of the four input parameters or how to use them. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered, but the lack of parameter guidance leaves the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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% (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description does not mention any of the four parameters (delayMs, network, maxPages, pageLimit). The agent must rely solely on parameter names for meaning, which is insufficient. The description adds no value for parameter semantics.

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 performs a 'WHOLE-LEDGER key-rotation posture census' using ledger data, reporting percentages of accounts and XAH supply for three key-rotation categories. It distinguishes itself from hndl_exposure by specifying it measures config, not exposure, making its purpose distinct among 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?

The description explicitly contrasts with hndl_exposure ('not exposure (hndl_exposure does that)') and notes that figures are network statistics, not per-account scans. It also warns that the tool is 'HEAVY + rate-limited; paced,' guiding usage. However, it does not list alternative tools for per-account queries or provide explicit when-to-use instructions beyond the contrast.

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