Snapshot the ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns the ledger, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe any side effects, the meaning of the optional sessionId parameter, or potential limitations such as size or performance. This is insufficient detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and primary use case, making it easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves the sessionId parameter unexplained and provides no details about the returned ledger's structure or size. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral detail makes it only minimally complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'sessionId' parameter at all. Since the parameter is optional and its purpose is not revealed, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'full current ledger', which precisely defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes from siblings like ledger_record and ledger_query by specifying 'full current' and the boundary re-injection context.

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 phrase 'used at boundaries for re-injection' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clearly communicated.

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