compute-ledger__list_inventories

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only hints at read-only via 'list' but omits details on pagination, auth needs, or return format. This is insufficient disclosure.

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 one sentence, concise, but includes a bracketed prefix that adds noise. It could be cleaner by removing the prefix or integrating it more naturally.

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 simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'separate GHG inventory chain' is, what the response looks like, or how it relates to other inventory tools.

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 single parameter agent_id is not described beyond the schema type. The description adds only that it pertains to 'an agent,' but no format, constraints, or example. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate.

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 'List the separate GHG inventory chain for an agent,' clearly indicating the verb (list) and resource (inventory chain). It distinguishes from siblings like get_inventory and record_inventory, though 'separate GHG inventory chain' could be more specific.

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 like list_entries or get_inventory. The description lacks any contextual direction for selection among siblings.

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