search_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output format (markdown snippets) and mentions 'private' entries, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or detail any authentication or rate-limiting behavior. For a search tool, this omission is a notable gap.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second provides direct guidance on parameter usage. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral intent and gives partial parameter guidance. However, it lacks details on query syntax, return value limits, and explicit read-only confirmation, leaving some completeness gaps for a reasonably complex semantic search 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains the 'section' parameter's usage well, but provides no details about 'query' (required) or 'limit' (optional), such as expected format, default value, or constraints. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

Clearly states it performs semantic search on journal entries and returns structured markdown snippets with source paths, sections, scores, and excerpts. The verb 'search' and resource 'private journal entries' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like list_journal, read_journal, and write_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?

Explicitly advises when to use the 'section' parameter ('narrow recall when the intent is known; omit section for broad discovery'). This provides actionable guidance for choosing between focused and broad search, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use the tool.

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