ledger_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — cross-session memory scope and time-descending result order — but says nothing about defaults (limit=100), pagination, or result size limits.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the resource, scope, filters, and ordering are all front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is compressed to the point of omitting useful detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, leaving 'since', 'limit', and the enum-less 'kind' unaddressed leaves real gaps in how an agent would call it correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names four of them (connection, kind/类型, keyword, job_id), which is meaningful added value, but 'since' and 'limit' remain entirely undocumented and no allowed values for 'kind' are given.

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 verb (检索/retrieve) and resource (执行留痕 execution ledger), plus its distinguishing scope: cross-session memory. It also names the filter dimensions and sort order. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearest sibling (log), but the '跨会话记忆' qualifier does most of that work.

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 lists filterable fields but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions an alternative (e.g., log or jobs) that an agent might pick instead. Usage is only implied by the filter list.

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