debt_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only, which is a critical behavioral trait, and describes its grouping and flagging behavior. It lacks details on performance or auth, but the provided information is adequate for understanding its operation.

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 at 4 sentences, with each sentence adding distinct value: alias, core function, grouping and flagging, read-only nature, and usage context. No fluff.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, output (debt ledger with groups and flags), and recommended usage context. Despite no output schema, it provides sufficient information for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without parameters, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 harvests rin markers into a debt ledger, groups by file, and flags those without upgrade triggers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a functional alias for jambavan_rin_mochan and specifying its output and use case.

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 says to call before a release or refactor sprint, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but as an alias, the guidance is sufficient.

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