shadowgraph_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that entries are immutable audit evidence, append-only/never rewritten in place, and are complete post-operation snapshots in sequence. This gives the agent meaningful invariants beyond the safety flags.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: define the resource, route to alternatives, and state immutability/read-only guarantee. Minor redundancy in 'Reads only' given the readOnly annotation, but no waste.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the journal is, how it is ordered, its read-only/immutable nature, and how it relates to the main sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to select and call 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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including defaults, bounds, and ordering guarantees, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail and does not do so. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('append-oriented journal of complete post-operation snapshots'), and states the sequence ordering. It also distinguishes the tool from three siblings by assigning them distinct jobs (rebuild, validate, search).

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?

It names shadowgraph_rebuild, shadowgraph_validate, and shadowgraph_search with their distinct purposes, which lets an agent infer when journal is the raw-source read rather than those specialized operations. However, the guidance is implicit—it never says 'use X instead' or lists when not to use journal, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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