journal_execution

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup via 'Lire', but says nothing about permissions required, whether a completed run is needed, pagination/limits, or how errors are surfaced besides the vague mention of 'éventuelles erreurs'.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves gaps that a second clause about scope or return content could have closed.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it does not describe the return shape (log entries, results, error records) or what an agent should expect when a run has no output. For an inspection tool this leaves meaningful uncertainty.

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 single parameter run_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no meaning beyond a string. The description partially compensates by tying it to 'une exécution', implying run_id identifies the execution whose journal is returned, but adds no format or validity constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Lire') and a specific resource (the actions, results and errors of an execution), so the agent knows it retrieves an execution's journal rather than mutating anything. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as 'historique' or 'diagnostic', which also sound like read/inspection tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of 'historique', 'diagnostic' or 'consulter_plan'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the one-sentence purpose statement.

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