ledger_session_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: actions grouped by category, dispatches show resolved verdict or PENDING, and a 'no entries' message for empty windows. No contradictions exist.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then provides digestible details on content, parameters, and return value, with every sentence adding value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, read-only), the description fully covers behavior, output format, and edge cases. The presence of an output schema is noted, and the description's return explanation is sufficient.

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 provides the type and default for since_hours, with no description. The description explicitly explains that it is 'How many hours back to include' and states the default, fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 generates a markdown report of actions and dispatches within a time window, with explicit grouping and verdict details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that log actions, dispatches, verdicts, or provide stats.

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 states it is 'useful for a human-readable audit summary', which clearly conveys when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tool names imply other purposes like logging or stats.

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