Load ledger

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

With zero annotations the description carries the whole burden, and it discloses the key traits: it replaces the in-memory cache (state-destroying), never writes to disk, and resolves relative paths against the server process working directory. It stops short of stating what happens to the existing cache on a failed load, or what the call returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then the accepted input forms. Every clause contributes information and nothing is padded.

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-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, its state impact, its persistence profile, and input resolution. The notable remaining gap is error behavior when the ledger is invalid, since a failure mode matters when the cache is being replaced.

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?

The schema already documents the accepted forms at 100% coverage, so the description's restatement of 'object, JSON file path, or JSON text' is redundant. It still earns above baseline by adding genuinely new semantics: relative paths resolve against the server process working directory.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Load a ledger') plus the side effect ('replace the in-memory cache'), which is far clearer than the ambiguous name 'show'. It never mentions the sibling 'open', so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two to pick.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'open' or 'help', and no exclusion conditions. The only implied usage cue is the note that it replaces the cache, which hints at a heavier operation but never states a decision rule.

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