Metis — Get Journal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states tools lists entries newest first, optionally filtered by date, and returns a formatted list or note. Does not disclose potential side effects or permissions, but as a read operation the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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-structured with a clear one-line summary, usage paragraph, parameter list, and return note. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Use this to' repeats the first sentence) but overall efficient 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description adequately covers behavior, parameters, and return format. It explains default behavior and edge case (no entries). For a simple read tool, it is complete.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains 'date_from' format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and default behavior (no filter returns most recent), and 'limit' maximum count with default 10. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it lists journal entries from the knowledge base, newest first, and distinguishes it from other get_* tools by specifying it's for dated journal/log entries. The phrasing 'reflections, progress notes, and session handoffs' clarifies the content.

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 provides good usage context: 'look back over your dated journal/log entries' and 'rebuilding context at the start of a session.' It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but the use case is clear. Could be improved with direct exclusions.

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