pbi_inspect_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool is read-only and details what it reports for each file (original state, backup availability, outcome). This sufficiently discloses behavior, though it doesn't discuss error cases or permissions.

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 brief and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by behavioral details and parameter guidance. No redundant info.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered. The description provides purpose, behavior, and parameter sourcing, making it sufficient for a simple read-only tool with one parameter.

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 only provides a name and type for the journal parameter. The description adds valuable meaning by specifying it should be a path returned by pbi_list_pending_journals, eliminating ambiguity about the expected value.

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 tool inspects a journal and compares it to the current project state, using a specific verb ('Inspecciona') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from recovery tools by explicitly stating 'Solo lectura: no restaura nada'.

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 clear context: it is read-only and does not restore, implying it should be used for inspection before any recovery. It also references pbi_list_pending_journals for obtaining the journal path, giving a concrete workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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