plainhub_ledger_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses ordering, the default filter, the on-disk source of the data, and a prompt-injection warning that results are wrapped in <ledger-data-…> markers and must be treated as data. It never explicitly says the operation is read-only, though 'List' strongly implies it.

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 scope, location, ordering, and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, an example, and the safety note. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers location, ordering, default behavior, returned fields, and data-provenance safety. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need to guess at before calling it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the default ('pending') via the '{}' example and adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List decision cards in the ledger'), pins down the storage location (.agents/decisions/ via PLAINHUB_LEDGER), states ordering (oldest first), and enumerates the returned fields (id, status, waiting-since, summary). That is enough to separate it from siblings like plainhub_ledger_tasks or plainhub_ledger_thread without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('see what is waiting for a person') and a concrete invocation example ('{} lists the pending cards'). It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at an alternative sibling, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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