list_journal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly conveys that this is a read-only listing operation returning metadata rather than full content, and it reveals the output fields. It does not mention default time windows, sorting direction, or pagination behavior, but for a simple list tool it gives sufficient behavioral context.

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, well-front-loaded sentence. It states the action, scope, included fields, and purpose without wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description lists the return fields and an intended use case, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it omits important details like the default value for 'days,' how 'limit' affects results, and the exact chronological ordering (oldest-first vs newest-first). These gaps are meaningful for a listing tool, though the overall complexity is low.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining 'days' or 'limit.' The word 'recent' hints at the days parameter and 'limit' is self-explanatory to a degree, but the tool description adds no explicit semantics, defaults, or interactions between the parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent journal entries'), and enumerates the returned fields: paths, dates, sections, and projects. It also states the purpose as 'chronological review before reading full entries,' which clearly distinguishes it from read_journal, write_journal, and search_journal.

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 phrase 'before reading full entries' gives clear context for when to use this tool: as a lightweight overview before invoking read_journal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended workflow is clear.

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