compute-ledger__footprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that totals are exact sums, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any authentication, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 (two sentences). The prefix '[compute-ledger — compute-is-carbon energy/carbon ledger]' adds noise but does not harm understanding. It is front-loaded with the key information.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one parameter, no output schema). The description partially covers the output (total J, kWh, etc.), but lacks return format details and behavioral context. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. It mentions 'agent_id' implicitly through 'aggregate footprint for an agent', but does not clarify the format, constraints, or how to obtain the agent_id. This is insufficient.

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 aggregates footprint (total J, kWh, gCO2e, cost, mean Landauer efficiency) for an agent, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entries (which lists individual entries) and record_work (which records new entries).

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 implies use when aggregated totals are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, given the clear purpose, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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