get_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that entries are listed 'newest first', that date_from is optional and defaults to no filter, that limit defaults to 10, and that the return is 'a formatted list of journal entries with their dates, or a note if none match.' It is a read-only operation, which is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 well-organized: first a concise purpose sentence, then usage guidance, followed by parameter details with clear formatting, and finally the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects), the description fully covers the functionality, parameter behaviors, and return format. An output schema exists, so return details are handled. Sibling tools like add_journal_entry and search_memory provide contrast.

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%, so the description adds full meaning. It explains date_from as 'Earliest entry date to include, as "YYYY-MM-DD". Empty string (the default) applies no date filter and returns the most recent entries.' And limit as 'Maximum number of entries to return, newest first. Defaults to 10.' This goes beyond the schema properties.

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 'List journal entries from your knowledge base, newest first' and provides specific use cases like 'look back over your dated journal/log entries — reflections, progress notes, and session handoffs'. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as add_journal_entry and search_memory.

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?

The description advises 'Use this to look back over your dated journal/log entries... optionally from a given start date' and mentions it's 'Helpful for "what was I working on lately?" and for rebuilding context at the start of a session.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or give alternatives.

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