pbi_inspect_journal

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

While annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it compares against current state, reports per-file status (original, backup availability, outcome), and reinforces that no restoration occurs. This goes well beyond the annotation by explaining the tool's analysis and output nature.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence, followed by a short read-only note, then a summary of output, and finally the parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 has only one parameter, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only behavior, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, safety profile, parameter source, and the kind of results produced. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema for 'journal' provides only type and required status with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the parameter's meaning and origin: '`journal`: ruta devuelta por pbi_list_pending_journals'. This gives the agent the necessary context to correctly supply the value.

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: 'Inspecciona un journal y lo compara con el estado ACTUAL del proyecto' (inspects a journal and compares it with the current project state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_recover_from_journal by explicitly stating 'Solo lectura: no restaura nada' (read-only, restores nothing), making its purpose unique.

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 by noting it is read-only and does not restore anything, implying it should be used for inspection rather than recovery. It also tells users where to obtain the journal parameter ('ruta devuelta por pbi_list_pending_journals'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for restoration, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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