ghg-ledger__describe_agent

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully cover behavior. It describes what is returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any other behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences or one sentence with a parenthetical. Every part adds value, and the key information 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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does. It specifies the returned items and provides necessary context about ghg-ledger.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description need not add parameter information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate as no additional detail is required.

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 verb 'Return' and the resources 'fleet-standard capabilities, version, pack digest, and pricing.' The bracketed prefix distinguishes this tool from other describe_agent tools by scoping it to ghg-ledger.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other describe_agent tools. The ghg-ledger context provides implicit guidance, but no direct usage or exclusion conditions are given.

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