qhrisk_ledger_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It describes what the tool checks but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, what its output format is, or how it handles invalid ledger input. Some behavior is implied by '对账', but not explicitly stated.

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 one concise sentence and front-loads the key concept '台账对账'. There is no verbosity or wasted content, though the brevity contributes to missing contextual details.

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 annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description needs to provide substantially more context. It omits input format, expected output/return values, usage guidance, and behavioral side effects, making it only minimally usable for selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'ledger' parameter beyond implying it contains judgments. It gives no format, structure, or expected content details, leaving the agent to guess what the ledger string should look like.

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 states a specific verb ('对账' / reconcile) and resource ('台账' / ledger), and gives concrete check criteria: whether each judgment records what problem it solves and what happens if removed. It distinguishes itself from qhrisk_ledger_show by being a check/validation action rather than a display action, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to audit ledger judgments against the stated criteria. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternative suggestions, and no context comparing it with qhrisk_review or qhrisk_recheck.

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