compute-ledger__record_work

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

The description transparently explains the internal calculations (energy_j = power_w * duration_s; carbon_g from grid intensity), validation against Landauer limit if bit_ops provided, and idempotency on entry_id. No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden and does so well.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then formulas, then validation rule, then idempotency. No wasted words.

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 complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the core function and key behaviors. It could be more complete by explaining all parameters and return values, but it suffices for a recording tool with no output schema needed.

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 compensates by explaining the roles of key parameters: power_w, duration_s, grid_intensity_g_per_kwh, bit_ops, and entry_id. However, it does not explicate all 9 parameters (e.g., temperature_k, price_minor_per_kwh), so some gap remains.

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 purpose: 'Record a unit of agent compute work.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like compute-ledger__footprint or compute-ledger__list_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?

No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the sibling list, but no direct comparison or prerequisites mentioned.

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