guard_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that limit is silently clamped — but does not state the range or whether a warning is returned, so the disclosure is vague rather than actionable.

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?

Two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The phrase "at the journal boundary" is slightly opaque and could be tightened, but the structure is efficient overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with 0% parameter coverage the description should have supplied allowed 'type' values and concrete limit bounds; it does neither. Given eleven sibling tools with adjacent semantics, the lack of any disambiguation leaves the definition incomplete for correct tool selection.

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 both parameters fall entirely on the description. It only restates that 'type' filters by journal type without listing valid values (the field is a bare string with no enum) and says 'limit' is clamped without giving the bounds or the default of 5. Neither parameter gains usable meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Read recent journal entries") and adds a scope detail (optional filtering by journal type). It does not distinguish this tool from plausibly overlapping siblings such as guard_recall or guard_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the eleven siblings are named as alternatives. The phrase "optionally filtered by journal type" hints at a use case but leaves the choice between guard_journal, guard_recall, and guard_note entirely to inference.

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