execution_journal_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the journal is a JSON file with an immutable id, timestamps, inputs, entries, artifacts, and verification data, and it explicitly discloses the workspace-root path constraint. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'start a journal' statement.

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 with distinct sections: purpose, journal format, Args, Returns, KB reference, and an example. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every section contributes operational value without redundancy. It is thorough without being bloated.

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?

The description covers the operation's purpose, the journal's structure, path-safety behavior, all parameter semantics, the return payload, and a concrete invocation example. Given that an output schema exists and no annotations are present, this description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a session workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Each of the six parameters is explained with its purpose: title, goal, project_name, journal_dir, tags, and metadata. The descriptions add semantic value that the schema itself lacks, such as journal_dir being workspace-relative and metadata accepting context like branch or map.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Start a repo-local execution journal for an autonomous work session.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling journal tools like execution_journal_log and execution_journal_finish by its initiatory scope. The purpose is concrete and not a restatement of the tool name.

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 gives a clear usage context: it is for starting a repo-local execution journal at the beginning of an autonomous work session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'start' semantics and session framing make the intended invocation point obvious.

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