list_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that output includes paths, dates, and sections, implying a read-only, sorted list. However, it omits details like pagination, default limit, or sorting order beyond 'chronological', leaving gaps in behavioral clarity.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes key return fields, and provides purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (paths, dates, sections) and its role relative to siblings. It lacks mention of defaults, error behavior, or ordering details, but is adequate for a simple list 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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description implies the 'days' parameter controls recency via 'recent', but does not explain 'limit'. It adds partial meaning but fails to document parameter behavior or constraints fully.

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 the tool lists recent journal entries with specific fields (paths, dates, sections) and indicates it's for chronological review before reading full entries. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_journal (full entry) and search_journal (content-based search).

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 context: use this tool for chronological review before reading full entries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_journal for content queries.

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