Journal timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, one-line-per-record formatting, default limit of 200, and the 0-means-unlimited behavior. These details help the agent understand what invoking the tool will produce.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior (timeline of timestamps and raw records), then adds optional filtering, limits, and the alternative stats tool, all in around 25 words.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with only two optional parameters and no required fields, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly: output ordering, line format, filter behavior, and row limits. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap here, though more detail about the exact fields within each raw journal line would make it fully 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 100%, and both parameters are already fully described in the input schema: 'id' as an optional node id filter and 'limit' as a row cap with default 200 and 0 meaning unlimited. The description echoes this information without adding new semantic depth, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool returns: a timeline of node and edge timestamps plus raw journal records, ordered newest first, one line each. The phrase 'timeline' combined with the title 'Journal timeline' gives a specific action and resource, and explicitly contrasts with 'stats aggregates the same history into metrics,' which helps distinguish it from the sibling 'stats' tool.

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 usage context: it is a read-only chronological journal view with optional id filtering and a limit. Mentioning that 'stats aggregates the same history into metrics' signals the alternative for aggregated views, though it does not explicitly state 'use log for raw records, use stats for metrics.' This is still enough contextual guidance for an agent.

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