pbi_list_pending_journals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about what 'pending' means and how only_pending=false changes output, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Some transparency is provided, but gaps remain.

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: a one-line purpose, a clarifying definition of pending, and the parameter effect. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 list tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It defines key terminology and explains the parameter. It could additionally mention that it is a read-only operation or point to related recovery tools, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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%, but the description directly explains the only_pending parameter: 'only_pending=false lists also the closed ones'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description, adding meaning beyond the raw boolean type.

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 lists journals of the active project, and specifies 'pending' journals as those from operations that were neither confirmed nor reverted. This distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_inspect_journal (inspect one journal) and pbi_recover_from_journal (recover from a 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 explains the semantics of pending journals and the parameter effect, implying usage for checking stuck operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like pbi_inspect_journal or pbi_recover_from_journal, nor does it give exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.

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