ledger_check_approaches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the return format (lists of approaches, reasons, timestamps, ordered newest first), empty-list behavior, and the policy against re-attempting failed approaches. This goes well beyond the structured 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 concise and front-loaded: the main usage instruction appears in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's single parameter, existing annotations, and the included output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers when to use, what the parameter means, the return structure with ordering and empty-list handling, and the behavioral policy—all an agent needs.

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 schema only defines 'task' as a string, but the description adds crucial meaning: 'The exact task string used with ledger_log_approach.' This clarifies the parameter's provenance and required exact match, significantly enhancing the schema's bare type definition.

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 check known approaches (dead_ends, no_gos, works) for a task before retrying or re-planning. It distinguishes itself from sibling logging tools by being a read/check operation, and the specific verb 'check' plus resource 'approaches' makes it unambiguous.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Call this BEFORE retrying or re-planning a task.' It also provides a clear exclusion rule: never re-attempt an approach listed in dead_ends or no_gos unless new information invalidates the reason. This is direct, actionable guidance.

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