femm_journal

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the '#! ' prefix for refused commands, that internal pings are filtered, that results are capped by limit, and that save writes a replayable script to <work_dir>/scripts/journal.py runnable via femm_run_script. It stops short of stating the permission/read-only profile or response shape beyond the line-list format.

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?

Front-loads the core identity before the side-effect and sibling note. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical about the script path makes one sentence run long.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers return content, error formatting, filtering, and the save side-effect. The unexplained `session` parameter is the only notable gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `limit` ('most recent `limit`') and `save` (writes the full journal as a replayable script, with the exact path), but leaves `session` (default 'main') entirely unexplained, so one of three parameters remains undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and content: 'the raw command lines this session sent to FEMM', clarified as 'exactly what the engine executed'. It also distinguishes itself from femm_export_pyfemm_script by naming that sibling for the standalone-file case.

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?

Only forward guidance is 'Use femm_export_pyfemm_script for a standalone file', which routes one alternative case. It never states when to reach for the journal itself (debugging, auditing, replay) versus siblings like femm_status or femm_file_summary.

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