qhrisk_ledger_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only 'view' operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, requires special permissions, or how the ledger content is returned. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is thin behavioral disclosure.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the resource and key content efficiently. It is appropriately concise, but it sacrifices necessary parameter and usage details, so it is slightly under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent cannot determine valid `ledger` values, what `md` toggles, or how this view differs from qhrisk_ledger_check. The core purpose is clear, but invocation-critical context is missing.

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 either parameter. The required string `ledger` is only inferable as the ledger to view, while the optional boolean `md` is completely opaque. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 uses a concrete verb, 查看 ('view'), with a specific resource, 判定台账 ('judgment ledger'), and enumerates what the ledger shows: whether each step was kept, deleted, or simplified, and its review status. This makes the tool's function clear and differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like qhrisk_simplify, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named qhrisk_ledger_check.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus qhrisk_ledger_check, qhrisk_review, or qhrisk_patterns_show. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over a sibling. The only usage signal is the implicit 'view' verb.

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