rohan_get_ledger_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that data comes "from memory cache" and enumerates the returned fields (state root, block height, last mined tx hash). However, it never addresses cache staleness, L1 confirmation semantics, or failure behavior, which matter for a state-read tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and chain scope front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields, and for a zero-param read it covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only gap is the absence of any note on cache freshness or refresh behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs elaboration and the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 ("Reads") and a precisely scoped resource (the current anchored state of the Rohan Protocol contract on Midnight Preprod L1), which is enough to separate it from a handshake or commitment-verification call. It does not explicitly name its siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 read-only framing implies when the tool is appropriate (fetching current on-chain state), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to rohan_zk_handshake / rohan_verify_commitment. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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