list_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'read' implying a non-destructive operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, authentication needs, or how 'recent' is determined (e.g., chronological order, pagination). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agents uninformed about return format.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is too brief to add significant value beyond the name, which slightly reduces the score.

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 3 parameters, no required fields, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention filtering capabilities, ordering, or pagination. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance, leaving agents without critical context for correct usage.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. It only says 'Read recent entries,' which vaguely relates to limit, journal, and beforedate parameters. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explicitly describe parameter roles, defaults, or allowed values.

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 reads recent entries from a LiveJournal journal. It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (recent entries), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like cache_entries_for_date (caching) or get_entry (single entry). However, 'recent' is vague and could be more precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use list_entries instead of get_entries_for_date or search_recent_entries. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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