get_decision_ledger

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's read-only and no-mutation statements add little new safety information. The added 'concise view' wording gives a mild output-behavior hint, but no deeper context such as permissions, data scope, or freshness.

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 brief and front-loaded with the read-only nature and the return object. The phrase 'It exposes no mutation capability' is somewhat redundant with 'Read-only', but the overall structure is clean and efficient.

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 zero-argument read-only tool with a known output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main missing piece is how this tool relates to sibling read-oriented tools, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('engine decision-ledger view'), and an output quality ('concise'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling getters like get_trace or get_state.

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 only notes that the tool is read-only and has no mutation capability. It gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_state, get_trace, or get_round. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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