distill_journal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the pipeline's side effects (writing markdown entries and advancing high-water) and explicitly states it is idempotent, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not cover every edge (e.g., permissions or errors), but core behaviors are transparent.

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, dense sentence that conveys the full pipeline in a clear, front-loaded manner. Every clause adds meaning, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 description gives a good overview of the pipeline and idempotency, but with no output schema, annotations, or parameter explanations, it misses return-value details and how the parameters influence behavior. It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for full operational use.

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% for two parameters (max_events and project_slug), and the description does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'raw events since high-water mark' and 'group by topic' but does not connect these to the input parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb ('Run the distillation pipeline') and details each step: reading raw events since high-water mark, grouping by topic, writing mechanical markdown entries, and advancing high-water. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like journal_append or distill_journal_commit_upgrades.

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 the usage context: run when there are raw events since the high-water mark needing distillation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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