compute-ledger__list_inventories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention what the response looks like, whether results are paginated, if there is a limit, or if the tool is read-only. For a list operation, such details are important for an agent to handle the output correctly.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it includes a bracketed prefix that seems to be metadata ('[compute-ledger — compute-is-carbon energy/carbon ledger]') which adds noise but does not significantly degrade conciseness. The core statement is front-loaded.

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 domain (carbon ledger) and the complexity of the concept 'GHG inventory chain', the description is minimal. It does not define key terms, mention expected output, or explain how this tool relates to other inventory tools. An AI agent would likely need more context to use it correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'agent_id', with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the agent_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, validity). The schema provides only a title; no additional meaning is conveyed.

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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('separate GHG inventory chain') for an agent. However, the phrase 'separate GHG inventory chain' is somewhat vague, and the tool's purpose might not be immediately understood by someone unfamiliar with the domain. It does differentiate from siblings like 'ghg-ledger__calculate_inventory' which computes a new inventory.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list vs. calculate an inventory). There are no instructions on prerequisites, such as whether an agent must exist or have prior inventories. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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