Review recent Billy accounting proposals, including rejected or uncertain writes, to identify unknowns that need reconciliation against live records before taking recovery steps.
Read the last 200 proposals, including rejected/uncertain writes. An unknown outcome requires reconciliation against live Billy records before recovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious traits: a fixed 200-entry cap, inclusion of rejected/uncertain writes, and the warning that unknown outcomes require reconciliation against live records before recovery. These go beyond the structured metadata and are consistent with openWorldHint.
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?
Two sentences carry meaningful, non-redundant information. The primary action is front-loaded, and the crucial recovery caveat is placed second without padding. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a read-only journal tool with simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the scope, content, and a critical operational caveat. It does not explain what a 'proposal' is or describe the return shape, but the sibling tool names and the Billy domain provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. The undocumented 'verbose' parameter is a minor omission here.
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 single parameter 'verbose' has no schema description and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain 'verbose' at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the parameter name. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, the semantics are under-specified.
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 operation ('Read') and the resource ('the last 200 proposals'), and adds the key distinguishing detail that rejected/uncertain writes are included. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the 'proposals' framing with rejected/uncertain writes separates it from plain list/get tools like billy_list and billy_get.
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 this tool is useful (inspecting recent proposals, including rejected/uncertain ones) and gives a follow-up directive for unknown outcomes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer billy_journal over billy_list, billy_get, or billy_status, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.