get_ledger_device_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing it uses a USB HID APDU, is a single round-trip with no chain RPC calls, and handles missing udev rules gracefully without throwing. 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 but front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY — probe...'. It is informative but slightly verbose; however, every sentence contributes meaning. Could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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 fully explains return values (deviceConnected, app name/version, hint) and error conditions (no device, missing udev rules). It also relates to sibling tools (pair_ledger_*) and gives actionable hints. Complete for a simple parameterless tool.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline is 4. The description explains what the tool returns (deviceConnected, app info, hint), which is sufficient given no parameters.

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 a connected Ledger device to report which app is open (name + version) and provides an actionable hint. The verb 'probe' and 'report' are specific to the resource, and the description distinguishes it from sibling pairing tools like pair_ledger_solana by advising to call this before them.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this BEFORE pair_ledger_solana / pair_ledger_tron') and provides context-aware usage examples. Also mentions it never throws, works on dashboard or inside apps, and returns deviceConnected: false cleanly when no device is present.

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