Delimit Ledger Groom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explaining that the tool returns proposals only, never applies changes, requires founder review before risky operations, and includes a copy-pasteable ready_to_apply invocation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with clear When to use, When NOT to use, and Sibling contrast sections. However, the final LED-1145 paragraph largely repeats the Side effects paragraph, creating minor redundancy that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 covers purpose, usage boundaries, sibling alternatives, safety behavior, and the proposal response pattern. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be repeated. All four parameters have defaults and descriptions, so an agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with defaults and meanings. The description adds high-level context by mentioning stale, duplicate, and garbage detectors, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only grooming proposal — flags stale / duplicate / garbage items.' It clearly distinguishes itself from nearby ledger tools by positioning itself as 'the read-only proposer' versus delimit_ledger_bulk's applying role.

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 states when to use it ('as a periodic review tool'), when NOT to use it ('to apply the changes'), and names the alternative (delimit_ledger_bulk). The sibling contrast further clarifies that delimit_ledger_health composes this with other checks, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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