housekeep_journal

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

Description discloses key behavioral traits: it is idempotent, prunes old raw .jsonl files, and archives cold tasks per retention policy. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and provides useful behavioral context, though could mention side effects or reversibility.

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?

Description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, and the second adds important details (idempotent, what it does). No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers its purpose and behavior. It could optionally mention the output or return value, but the agent can infer success/failure from tool calls.

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 single parameter project_slug is mentioned in the description ('for a project'), adding meaning beyond the schema which has no description. However, no further details about valid values or format are provided. Given the simple tool, this is adequate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run journal retention/archival for a project.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like distill_journal and journal_append by specifying it deals with retention/archival of old data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like distill_journal or journal_status. The usage is implied through the description, but it does not provide exclusions or comparative context.

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