journal.status

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 says 'Report' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what happens on invalid input. There is no mention of permissions or the meaning of 'high-water mark,' leaving important behavioral aspects unexplained.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Report') and includes the key resource. It contains no fluff, though it could potentially elaborate on the return format without losing brevity. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the report's content and behavior. It does not explain what the backlog and high-water mark represent, what the response looks like, or whether the operation is purely read-only. This leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer or test.

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 100%, and the only parameter project_slug is adequately described in the schema ('Project slug to check. Defaults to the current active project.'). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Report' and the specific resource 'journal backlog and high-water mark' for a project. It distinguishes itself from sibling journal tools (append, commit_upgrades, housekeep, note, etc.) by its reporting nature, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 usage as a status/information retrieval tool, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Since it is a simple report, the context is reasonably clear, but no explicit guidance on when to avoid it is provided.

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