neurogenesis__get_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the ledger is 'append-only' and events are 'returned verbatim', but fails to mention that the tool is read-only (non-destructive), whether authentication is needed, or any limitations like pagination or performance. The safety profile is partially implied but not explicitly stated.

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 short and the core sentence is concise, but it includes an unnecessary prefix ('[neurogenesis — developmental agents...]') that adds domain context without aiding tool selection. The main point is delivered, but some words could be trimmed for better front-loading.

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 annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return format, event ordering, or error conditions. It mentions 'NG3 — returned verbatim' but lacks details on data structure, pagination, or whether the agent must exist. The tool is simple but still leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has two parameters (agent_id required, limit optional with default 100) but the description does not mention either parameter or their semantics. Zero schema description coverage forces the description to compensate, but it adds no parameter information, leaving the agent guessing about required input and how to control output size.

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 it returns 'the append-only developmental ledger' containing 'every growth, pruning, and evaluation event with reasons', effectively communicating the tool's purpose as a read-only accessor for ledger events. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like neurogenesis__describe_agent or neurogenesis__export_state which serve different functions.

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 to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about scenarios (e.g., auditing, debugging) and does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but no comparative guidance is provided.

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