get_ledger_device_info

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds rich behavioral context: it uses the GET_APP_AND_VERSION APDU, works on dashboard or chain apps, lists example outputs for various apps, and describes the clean error behavior when no device is connected or udev rules are missing. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then provides detailed examples and usage context. While it is lengthy, all information is valuable and well-organized. Could be slightly more concise but effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (app name+version, hint, deviceConnected: false). It covers edge cases (no device, missing udev rules) and provides actionable instructions for the agent on how to interpret and use the information. Complete and self-contained.

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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits param details.

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 tool probes the connected Ledger device over USB HID and reports the currently open app (name and version) plus an actionable hint. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like pair_ledger_solana by positioning this as a pre-check to enable context-aware instructions.

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 explicitly tells when to use: call BEFORE pair_ledger_solana/pair_ledger_tron. It provides examples of how the result can be used to inform the user. It also notes that the tool never throws and returns clean error states, so the agent knows it's safe to call.

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