delimit_ledger_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Side effects: read-only' and references the internal call (ai.ledger_manager.list_items). While it mentions back-compat for single-value filters, it lacks details on pagination behavior or rate limits. Nonetheless, it is largely transparent about the tool's non-destructive nature.

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 and well-structured with clear sections ('When to use', 'When NOT to use', 'Sibling contrast', 'Side effects'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving high efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, many optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, filtering richness, and sibling relationships. It could mention pagination cursor behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to make an informed selection.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by summarizing filter capabilities (by status, priority, tags, text, time window, external link) and noting that single-value status/priority are kept for back-compat, improving understanding beyond the schema.

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 'List ledger items with rich filters, sort, and pagination', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (delimit_ledger_context for top-5 summary, delimit_ledger_query for single item), establishing a unique scope.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' with examples of filters (status, priority, tags, etc.) and 'When NOT to use' with alternative tool names. This provides clear guidance on appropriate contexts, satisfying the dimension.

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