plainhub_ledger_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the read-only nature, the environment-variable resolution of the root folder, path restrictions and no-link-following behavior, and that content is wrapped in <ledger-data-…> markers. It omits failure behavior for missing files and any size or encoding limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, followed by constraints, then usage and examples, then the safety note. No sentence is filler; the examples and the injection warning both earn their place in a compact block.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers where the file lives, what may be read, how to phrase the path, and what the return looks like (header + body, marker-wrapped). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the path is relative to .agents and two concrete example paths show the threads/<slug>/<n>-<role>.md and decisions/<date>-<slug>.md conventions. That goes beyond the schema's single example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read one ledger file) plus scope qualifiers: the repository folder from PLAINHUB_LEDGER, header and body included. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ledger tools by positioning itself as the per-file reader for items those tools list.

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?

"Use it to read a whole message or decision card listed by the other ledger tools" gives a clear when-to-use rule and implicitly contrasts with the aggregate ledger siblings. It also states hard limits (only .md files inside .agents, links not followed) but does not name a specific alternative for cases like listing or searching.

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