pbi_inspect_journal

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

With no annotations, the description conveys key behavioral traits: it performs no restoration, operates read-only, and reports per-file status (unchanged, backup available, outcome). This is valuable transparency for a potentially destructive operation context, though it does not detail the exact output format (which is covered by the output schema).

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 efficient and front-loaded: first sentence states the purpose, second clarifies safety and behavior, and the parameter note is concise. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, behavioral details, and parameter source. It is complete in context, especially given the output schema handles return values.

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 only parameter 'journal' is explicitly described as the path returned by pbi_list_pending_journals, providing crucial meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates.

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 function: inspects a journal and compares it with the current project state. It uses a specific verb ('inspects') and resource ('journal'), and explicitly notes it is read-only, distinguishing it from recovery tools like pbi_recover_from_journal.

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 provides clear context: it should be used with a journal path from pbi_list_pending_journals, and it emphasizes read-only inspection before any recovery. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the read-only note effectively differentiates it from recovery and purge tools.

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