pbi_list_pending_journals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the list is scoped to the active project and that only_pending controls whether closed journals are included. It also adds meaningful context about what pending journals are (unconfirmed/unreverted operations containing originals), which goes beyond the schema.

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 concise, consisting of three short, information-dense sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence contributes meaningful detail without unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose, the parameter, and the domain concept of pending journals. It is sufficiently complete, though a brief mention of related recovery tools would have enhanced context.

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 only parameter, only_pending, is clearly explained: setting it to false also lists closed journals. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, which has no property descriptions. The explanation fully covers the parameter's 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 opens with 'Lista los journals del proyecto activo', a clear verb+resource statement. It further clarifies what 'pending' means and notes that 'only_pending=false' also lists closed journals, distinguishing this list operation from journal inspection or recovery tools.

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 implies usage by explaining that pending journals come from operations that died midway and contain originals, which suggests use when looking for interrupted operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_inspect_journal or pbi_recover_from_journal, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance.

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