pair_ledger_ltc

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (which state only idempotentHint=true). It details the enumeration of four address types, fault-tolerant processing per type, the taproot unsupported error, and that results appear in get_ledger_status. 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 well-organized with sections for purpose, requirements, technical details, and behavior. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though it could be slightly shorter 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the output structure (paired entries, skipped types, persistence under litecoin in get_ledger_status). It also covers fault tolerance and the taproot context, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 covers both parameters (accountIndex and gapLimit) with detailed descriptions and 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 'Pair the host's directly-connected Ledger device for Litecoin signing.' It specifies the verb (pair) and resource (Ledger LTC), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pair_ledger_btc by mentioning Litecoin and BIP-44 coin_type 2.

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 prerequisites: Ledger plugged in, unlocked, and Litecoin app open. It also notes that Ledger Live's WalletConnect relay does not expose Litecoin accounts, implying this tool fills that gap. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches aside from the WalletConnect limitation.

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