ghg-ledger__calculate_inventory

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions 'deterministic', 'auditable', and lists output components like notary payload and offset-clearinghouse dry-run weave, indicating some behaviors. However, it omits details on idempotency, side effects, or required permissions.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes a comprehensive list of outputs. While compact, it could benefit from bullet points for readability, but it efficiently conveys 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?

Despite listing many output components, the description fails to explain the input parameters adequately. For a tool with no output schema and under-described parameters, more detail is needed to enable correct invocation.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the structure or requirements for parameters 'activities' or 'options'. The mention of 'explicit activity records' is too vague to guide parameter usage.

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 calculates an auditable GHG inventory from explicit activity records, specifying scope coverage (Scope 1/2/3, dual Scope 2). It distinguishes from siblings like classify_activity or verify_result by positioning itself as the main calculation tool.

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 activity data is available and an inventory is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The phrase 'This is calculation, not advice' provides a usage boundary but is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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