Write journal

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the entry types returned and the fact that secrets are masked. It does not say how entries are ordered or whether the journal is complete or windowed, which would have pushed it higher.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and puts the useful scoping detail (secrets masked) at the end. Nothing is redundant and nothing obvious is buried.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the key work of describing what comes back (plans, apply intents and results, rollbacks) and that secrets are redacted. It leaves out ordering and how much history exists, which an agent arguably needs to interpret results.

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 100%, so limit, plan_id, and client_id are already documented in the schema, including that client_id comes from clients_list and that an empty value uses the only client. The description adds only the vague phrase 'of a client' and no format or default semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('write journal of a client') and enumerates what the journal contains (plans, apply intents and results, rollbacks), which separates it from plan_list/plan_get/rollback_plan. It stops short of naming a sibling it is often confused with, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for auditing past plan/apply/rollback activity. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when to prefer plan_get or rollback_plan, and no note on default ordering or scope of the journal.

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