plasticity_construction_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, commands are not replayed, external document changes are detected, and the live document is compared against the last durable construction event.

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 reasonably tight sentences, with the core read purpose front-loaded and the constraints following. No filler, though the dense terminology slightly hinders scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: journal entries, B-Rep change measurements, detected out-of-journal changes, and a live-vs-durable comparison. Combined with the annotation-covered read-only profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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% with two pagination parameters (limit, offset), so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'In pages' only vaguely implies pagination and never explains offset/limit semantics, defaults, or ranges that the schema lists without prose.

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?

States a specific verb ('read') and resource ('current-process MCP mutation inputs and compact B-Rep change measurements'), and clarifies scope ('in pages', 'does not replay commands'). However, the jargon-heavy phrasing is opaque and it never names or contrasts with close siblings like plasticity_construction_history or plasticity_changes_since, so an agent can't easily route among them.

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?

Gives a negative constraint ('does not replay commands') but no positive when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With siblings such as construction_history, changes_since, and wait_for_change available, the agent gets no signal for choosing this tool over them.

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