list_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns journal file titles, dates, and section headings, and that filtering applies to path/title. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, result limits, or how section headings are derived, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and includes the key optional parameter without unnecessary detail. Every part 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 read-only list tool with a single optional parameter, the description provides the essential call details: what is returned and how filtering works. It is somewhat incomplete because it does not contrast with sibling search tools, but the low complexity and clear output fields keep the gap small.

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 already documents 'filter' as a case-insensitive substring filter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful scope by specifying the filter applies to path/title, which goes beyond the schema's generic wording. This clarifies the parameter's actual effect.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('journal files'), and specifies the returned metadata: title, date, and section headings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_journal or search_regex, but the focus on listing file metadata is reasonably distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_journal, get_entry, or search_regex. The optional filter is mentioned but there is no explicit indication of when listing with a substring filter is preferable to content or regex search.

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