delimit_ledger_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Side effects: read-only' and the underlying call ('Calls ai.ledger_manager.get_links'), which is good. However, it could elaborate on error handling or pagination, though the output schema likely covers return values.

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 concisely structured with sections, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 simple read tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, usage, side effects, and sibling contrast. Minor gap: it does not mention behavior when the item_id is missing or invalid, but that is a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates parameter meanings (e.g., 'Item id to look up links for') without adding significant new information beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose as 'List relationships / dependencies for a ledger item.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delimit_ledger_link' (adds links) and 'delimit_ledger_update' (updates fields).

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are provided, with clear examples of what to inspect (blocks, depends, parent/child, related, duplicates) and alternatives (use delimit_ledger_link to add, delimit_ledger_update to update).

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