plainhub_ledger_tasks

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 where the data comes from (the PLAINHUB_LEDGER directory, .agents/plan/), that entries are written by other agents or people, and that the result is wrapped in <ledger-data-…> markers and must be treated as data rather than instructions. It does not cover ordering, pagination or behaviour when the environment variable is unset.

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 tight sentences plus a short example; the scope and data-provenance warning are front-loaded and nothing is redundant. The embedded JSON example is slightly awkward inline but still earns its space.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the data location, the returned fields, a usage cue and a prompt-injection safety note. Nothing material an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter is already documented with examples (todo, doing, done) and a default of all. The description's inline example {"status": "todo"} adds only marginal clarity beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List tasks in the ledger") and names the returned fields (file name, status, summary), which separates it from siblings like plainhub_ledger_decisions and plainhub_ledger_read. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 find work to pick up" gives a concrete intended use, but there is no guidance on when to prefer plainhub_ledger_decisions, plainhub_ledger_read or plainhub_ledger_thread, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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