housekeep_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 explicitly discloses that the operation is 'idempotent' and names the concrete effects ('prunes old raw .jsonl files', 'archives cold tasks'), which informs the agent about the tool's side effects. It stops short of explaining reversibility or permission requirements, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second adds a safe-rerun guarantee, and the third details what gets pruned/archived. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's modest complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the idempotency guarantee, and the high-level effects. It does not explain how the retention policy is configured or what the operation returns, but this is minor given the simple interface.

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?

There is only one parameter, project_slug, and the schema just says it's a string with no description (0% coverage). The tool description mentions 'for a project' but never names or explains the project_slug parameter, its format, or whether it is required. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('journal retention/archival') and provides concrete details ('prunes old raw .jsonl files', 'archives cold tasks') that clearly distinguish it from sibling journal tools like journal_append and journal_status.

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 usage context is implied by the word 'retention/archival' and 'per the configured retention policy', but the description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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