recent_journals

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 only states 'Retrieve', suggesting read-only behavior, but omits details like ordering, pagination, limits, or side effects. The presence of an output schema provides some structure but not behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus an arg explanation. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous information, earning its place.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential function. However, it could be more complete by specifying ordering (e.g., descending by date) or default behavior, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 description adds meaning to the 'days' parameter by explaining it as 'Number of days back to search', which supplements the schema's type and default. Despite zero schema description coverage, this is a basic but adequate addition.

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 'Retrieve recent journal entries', specifying a verb and a resource. Sibling tools like 'journal' (likely create), 'remember', 'forget', etc., are distinct, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for fetching recent entries with an optional days parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'journal' for creation, 'recall' for memories), leaving the distinction implicit.

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