list_spiritual_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists without mentioning if it's read-only, any side effects, ordering, or pagination behavior. The name implies a read-only operation, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 concise, single sentence that immediately states the tool's function. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 is simple, but with no output schema, the description should explain return values or filtering behavior. It does not mention what the list contains (e.g., fields, order) or clarify that 'limit' controls the number of results, leaving important gaps for a complete understanding.

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% - the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema shows a default of 10, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer its meaning.

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 ('Lista' = lists) and the specific resource ('anotações do diário espiritual pessoal' = personal spiritual journal notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_journal_entry and other list 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_prayers or list_devotionals. It only states the basic function without any exclusions or context.

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