Delimit Ledger Links

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description restates 'read-only' and adds the underlying call to ai.ledger_manager.get_links, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error behavior or response shape; with annotations present the added value is modest.

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 short, scannable, and organized with clear labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects). No filler; every sentence adds routing or behavioral value.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and a declared output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, exclusions, and side effects. It even names the backing API call. Nothing important is missing for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The schema covers both parameters 100%, and the description adds semantic depth beyond the schema by explaining what relationships mean in practice: blocks, depends on, parent/child, related items, duplicates. This helps an agent understand what item_id is actually resolving even though the schema only says 'look up links for.'

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 the exact action — 'List relationships / dependencies for a ledger item' — with a concrete resource and scope. It explicitly contrasts with delimit_ledger_link ('this reads existing ones'), so an agent can distinguish read vs write ledger-link tools immediately.

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?

Provides a dedicated 'When to use' section listing inspection scenarios (blocking, dependencies, parent/child, related items, duplicates) and a 'When NOT to use' section naming the exact alternative tools (delimit_ledger_link, delimit_ledger_update). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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