ledger_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description's added value is that this reads a *local* ledger at ~/.local/state/amadeus/jobs.jsonl overridable via AMADEUS_LEDGER, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose ordering, freshness, or whether entries exist only for commands issued from this machine.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core content (what the ledger contains) is front-loaded. The lack of a leading verb and the parenthetical path make it read as a fragment rather than a directive.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never characterizes the records returned (fields of a submission/update/cancellation entry), leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response shape. For a history-inspection tool with zero annotation detail beyond read-only, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the single `last` parameter (default 20) is undocumented anywhere. The phrase 'the last submissions' hints that it bounds recency/count, but no maximum, default, or ordering behavior is stated, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the resource and its contents (a ledger of recent submissions, updates, cancellations, approved commands), so the agent can infer it returns a command history. However it is a noun phrase with no verb ('Lists'/'Returns'), and it never contrasts itself with the many similar siblings (job_log, list_jobs, job_details), which makes selection ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this instead of job_log, list_jobs, or check_job, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase.

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