list-journals

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that without parameters it lists journals with pages, with journalId it reads first page content and shows pages, and with both reads full content. This is sufficient for a read-only operation. It doesn't mention side effects (none) or other traits, but the description is transparent about what happens in each mode.

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 two sentences long and conveys the necessary information efficiently. The key behavior is front-loaded ('List all journal entries, or read a specific journal/page'). It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is concise and clear.

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 4 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and the sibling tools include many similar list/read operations, the description adequately covers the different usage modes. It explains what the agent can expect for each parameter combination, which is sufficient for effective use. Could mention pagination or limits, but not critical.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the combined effect of parameters (e.g., how journalId and pageId interact) and clarifying what each mode returns. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: list all journal entries or read a specific journal or page. It distinguishes three modes based on parameter presence, using verbs like 'list' and 'read' with the resource 'journal entries/pages'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search-journals' and other document listing 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use each parameter combination (without params, with journalId, with both). It implicitly tells the agent what to expect in each case. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare with alternatives like 'search-journals', so it misses some guidance on when not to use this tool.

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