query_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 disclosing behavior. It does communicate that the operation is a read and that output follows a 'canonical form', which is useful. However, it does not explain pagination, ordering, error behavior, filtering semantics, or whether since_seq/limit behave as expected. The CLI reference is opaque without additional 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase—'Read', 'ledger events', 'same filters', 'canonical form'—contributes meaning. This is appropriately terse for the dimension, though the terseness hurts completeness elsewhere.

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 tool has six parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no parameter semantics, no usage context, and no behavioral detail beyond 'read' and 'CLI-compatible'. An agent would struggle to know what 'name' refers to or how filters are combined. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 for six undocumented parameters. It only says 'same filters' but does not define what filter values are expected for name, type, actor, stage, limit, or since_seq. The reference to the CLI hints at semantics but does not give the agent enough information to construct a correct call.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Read ledger events'. It distinguishes this from sibling session-control tools like run_session or get_status by focusing on ledger events rather than session lifecycle. However, it does not explicitly explain what a 'ledger event' is or how this differs from list_sessions_tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'with the same filters and canonical form as the CLI' implies a familiar command-line workflow and suggests this tool is the read/query counterpart to session actions. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling like get_status would be a better fit. Usage is implied rather than articulated.

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