get_journal_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering and example event types only; it omits read-only/security semantics, how 'relevant' is determined, pagination behavior, and what journal_dir or limit actually do.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, followed by illustrative examples. No unnecessary words are used.

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?

With no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an output schema that only offloads return-format explanation, the description is too thin. It leaves the two parameters, selection logic, and usage context undocumented.

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% and the description mentions neither limit nor journal_dir. It adds no semantic information beyond the bare parameter names, so an agent gets no guidance on what journal_dir expects or what limit controls.

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?

States the resource (journal events), ordering (newest first), and examples of event types (FSDJump, Docked, Loadout). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_commander_status or get_ship_loadout, so clear but no sibling routing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions are provided. An agent must infer when journal history is preferable to the many sibling status, location, and search tools.

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