pair_ledger_ltc

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it explains fault tolerance for address-type failures, mentions that taproot pairing is forward-compat only due to Litecoin Core not activating Taproot, and notes the reliance on USB HID via a specific SDK. Annotations only provide idempotentHint, so the description adds substantial behavioral context.

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 coherent paragraph that front-loads the purpose and requirements, then adds technical details. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could benefit from clearer sectioning. Overall, concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main aspects: pairing process, requirements, error handling, and references the output location (get_ledger_status). Without an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (accountIndex and gapLimit) with 100% coverage. The description adds marginal value, such as mentioning BIP-44 coin type 2 and gap-limit scanning, but these are already implied or stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to pair a directly-connected Ledger device for Litecoin signing. It details the process of enumerating four BIP-44 address types and walking chains, which distinguishes it from sibling pairing tools for other blockchains.

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 lists requirements (Ledger plugged in, unlocked, Litecoin app open) and explains the tool's behavior, including fault-tolerant per-type failure. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the requirements and blockchain specificity provide clear context for when to use this tool.

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