journal_list_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation ('List') and filter capabilities, but does not disclose behavioral details like ordering, pagination behavior, tag matching semantics, or any authentication requirements. It adds some context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the main action, the second summarizes filter capabilities. No redundant words; 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose and filter categories. There is no output schema, so explaining return format is unnecessary. Missing explicit pagination guidance, but the schema already defines limit and offset.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful grouping of filters (date, status, tags) that maps to the schema, but it does not add meaning beyond what each parameter description already provides.

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') with a clear resource ('journal entries') and source ('JournalOwl'), and mentions filter dimensions. It does not explicitly compare with siblings like journal_get_entry or journal_search, but 'list' vs 'get' vs 'search' is inherently distinguishing enough.

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 clearly states the tool is for listing journal entries and using filters by date, status, or tags, conveying the main use case. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over journal_search or journal_get_entry, nor does it include exclusion cues.

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