pbi_list_pending_journals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a read-only list operation. The description adds value by explaining that pending journals contain originals and that only_pending=false includes closed ones, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: what the tool does, what 'pending' means, and the optional parameter behavior. No wasted words or 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward list operation, the description adequately covers scope ('del proyecto activo') and filtering semantics. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no mention of what fields are returned per journal, but not required for the tool's basic use.

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 provides no description for the only_pending parameter, so the description carries the sole burden. It explains that setting only_pending=false lists closed journals as well, which clarifies the parameter's effect beyond the raw schema. The boolean nature and default are implicitly clear.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Lista' and specific resource 'journals del proyecto activo', distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect_journal and recover_from_journal. It also clarifies the meaning of 'pending', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 context about what pending journals are and the effect of the only_pending parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_inspect_journal or pbi_recover_from_journal. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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