Delimit Ledger Propose

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

The description clearly states 'read-only analysis (does NOT auto-create ledger items)', but the annotations set readOnlyHint: false. An agent receives conflicting signals about whether invoking this tool can mutate state, which is exactly the kind of contradiction that undermines safe tool selection.

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 front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses labeled sections for usage, non-usage, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With full parameter schema, an output schema, and clear side-effect disclosure, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It loses the top score only because the readOnlyHint: false annotation conflicts with the description's read-only claim, leaving the overall context inconsistent.

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 focus, venture, and max_items are already documented with defaults and semantics. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond suggesting 3-5 items, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and object: 'Propose new ledger items based on signals, completed work, and gaps.' It directly distinguishes this from delimit_ledger_add and delimit_ledger_list, so an agent can tell what the tool is for without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('end of a build loop or when the queue is empty'), when-not-to-use ('to add a known item' or 'list current items'), and names the correct sibling tools. 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.