Dream Journal Analysis

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description usefully adds matching semantics ('as a whole word'), the trend definition ('later half against earlier half'), and the 10-credit cost. What it omits is behavior on inputs that exceed limits or invalid dates, and it never states what happens when no symbol recurs.

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 metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost) is efficient and front-loads the key constraint, but the main sentence is one long run-on with heavy nesting of output details, which slows an agent scanning for the core purpose.

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?

Because an output schema exists, describing the return shape in prose is optional, and the description still covers input cap, matching rule, trend computation, and cost — enough for correct invocation. Only edge-case behavior and sibling routing are left unaddressed.

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%, but there is only one parameter and its structure (array of date/text objects, min 3 chars, max 2000 chars, max 100 items) is largely self-documenting. The description restates the 100-entry cap and the entry shape loosely but adds no guidance on date format, text quality, or what an empty or sparse journal yields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('dated dream entries searched for every directory symbol and recurring theme') and spells out the per-symbol outputs (count, first/last date, recurrence, trend). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names which sibling to use instead, even though counterparts like astroway_esoteric_dreams_recurring_themes exist.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a batch of dated dream texts and wants per-symbol frequency and trend analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative tools that cover recurring themes or single symbols.

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