journal_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (health score and actionable recommendations) and outlines the specific metrics tracked, giving good insight into its behavior without contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a bulleted list of tracks and a summary of returns. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (health assessment with multiple metrics), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It thoroughly explains what the tool does, the metrics it tracks, and what it returns, making additional details unnecessary.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's focus on journal practice health, which compensates for the lack of parameters, earning a baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 as providing a KPI dashboard and coaching recommendations for journal practice, with specific metrics listed (capture velocity, insight velocity, days since last Review entry, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on health assessment rather than operations like uploading, exporting, or searching.

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 usage for monitoring and improving journal practice health, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_stats for general statistics or knowledge_progress for progress tracking). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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