List Write Journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real context beyond them: the backing file, newest-first ordering, that parameters are shown as redacted at write time, and the rollbackable: true gate. That last point is critical behavioral knowledge an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with identity and contents, then the usage routing, then the rollback caveat. Dense but no sentence is redundant — each carries information not present elsewhere.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, ordering, and redaction behavior. Combined with the schema's filter documentation and the annotations' safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result.

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 100% and each of the three filters (tool, limit, routerId) is already documented in the schema, so the description need only reach baseline. It mentions 'router' and 'tool' as entry fields but adds no filtering syntax or interaction details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List recent entries from the server's write journal (write-journal.ndjson)' — and enumerates the exact fields each entry carries (journalId, timestamp, tool, router, parameters, snapshot ids, outcome) plus ordering (newest first). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_log or list_scripts.

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?

Gives two explicit use cases ('recover a lost journalId for rollback_change' and 'audit what was written when'), naming the downstream sibling tool that consumes the output. It also states the precondition for the follow-up action: only entries with rollbackable: true can be rolled back, and names the writes that never can be.

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