List journeys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope ('active journeys') and the output nature ('events each one depends on'), providing useful context. However, it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or potential size limits, so it adds moderate value beyond 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 a single, concise sentence that packs the core purpose and scope without any filler. Every word is meaningful, making it optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It might be improved by noting the output format or whether inactive journeys are included, but the current text is sufficient for 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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered. The description's mention of 'active journey' and 'events each one depends on' clarifies what the output will contain, which is the essential semantic info. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing every active journey in the project and the events each depends on. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expected_events (likely more focused on events) and describe_journey (likely for a single journey).

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?

Context implies use when a broad overview of active journeys and their dependencies is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like list_expected_events or describe_journey. The description is informative but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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