sswp_ledger

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: the ledger is 'append-only SHA-256 hash chain', 'cryptographically verifiable', and 'any altered or removed entry breaks the chain'. This informs the agent of immutable and security properties.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given only two optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter details. It mentions the return format (formatted table with fields). Minor gap: no mention of response structure or error handling, but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description restates that eventType is optional and explains event types (WITNESS, BULK_WITNESS) which are already in schema. No additional semantics added beyond schema.

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 it queries the SSWP audit ledger, specifying verb 'Query' and resource 'tamper-proof SSWP audit ledger'. It distinguishes from sibling tool sswp_registry_health by noting an alternative use case for fleet overview.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'audit trail review, compliance reporting, or incident investigation'. It also suggests an alternative tool for a different purpose (fleet overview). While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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