voltage_journal

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Read'. It adds value by explaining the behavioral semantics of the journal contents and the meaning of 'only_refused', which goes beyond the raw annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter tip as a concise, well-formatted follow-up. No filler or repetition, and the code-styled parameter reference is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description fails to explain the run_id parameter, which is central to selecting a run, and gives no mention of limit. The tool is simple with all optional params, but the missing parameter descriptions leave a gap in usability.

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 compensate. It explains only_refused in detail, but completely omits run_id and limit. run_id is critical for identifying which run to read, and limit is a common but still undocumented control. The description is inadequate for a zero-coverage schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a run's cycle-by-cycle record'), and lists the exact contents: what was seen, decided, refused, executed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like voltage_observe or voltage_diagnose by framing it as a chronological journal rather than a live observation or diagnostic.

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?

It gives explicit context for using the 'only_refused' filter and explains the fastest way to see policy/actuator disagreement. While it doesn't mention sibling tools for comparison, the usage hint is concrete and actionable, and the description clearly implies this tool is for inspecting historical decisions.

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