ghg-ledger__list_factor_packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output fields (pack version, regions, etc.) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any side effects, but given the simplicity (no parameters), the description is adequate.

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. The first provides context (ghg-ledger purpose), the second lists what the tool returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is fairly complete. It lists all the fields that will be returned. It could be improved by noting that it returns a list (implied by 'list'), but overall it provides sufficient information.

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, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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 that the tool lists factor packs and specifies the fields (version/digest, regions, years, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ghg-ledger__get_factor_pack' which likely retrieves a single pack, though the 'list' vs 'get' distinction is implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_factor_pack'. No when-not or context for usage is given, leaving the agent to infer based on tool name.

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