compute-ledger__record_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses energy/carbon calculation, Landauer floor validation, rejection of physically impossible claims, and idempotency. This is transparent, though it could mention error handling or side effects more explicitly.

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, dense paragraph of four sentences with no unnecessary words. It conveys essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (9 parameters, physics validation, no output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects and parameter relationships. However, it could include more detail on return value or error scenarios.

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 description explains key parameters (power_w, duration_s, bit_ops, grid_intensity_g_per_kwh) with formulas and validation logic, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not cover all 9 parameters (e.g., task, temperature_k, price_minor_per_kwh), leaving some ambiguity.

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 records a unit of agent compute work, provides the calculation formula, and mentions validation against Landauer floor. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the context (compute-is-carbon ledger) and the specific action (recording work).

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 when to use the tool (to record agent compute work) and includes details like idempotency on entry_id and validation of physical bounds. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like compute-ledger__footprint or attest, but the unique purpose is clear.

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