Prunes old raw .jsonl journal files and archives cold tasks for a project according to its retention policy. Runs idempotently and defaults to the current active project.
Run journal retention/archival for a project. Idempotent. Prunes old raw .jsonl files and archives cold tasks per the configured retention policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_slug | No | Project slug to housekeep. Defaults to the current active project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: idempotency (safe to re-run) and destructiveness ('prunes old raw .jsonl files'). However, it omits whether pruning is reversible, what 'the configured retention policy' is or how it is set, and any permission requirements for a destructive maintenance operation.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the destructive scope is stated immediately after rather than buried.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials, including the two most important behavioral facts (idempotent, prunes files). The remaining gap is the retention-policy configuration and irreversibility details, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself, including the default to the current active project. The description only gestures at project scope ('for a project') without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Run journal retention/archival for a project') and then concretizes it with the actual effects: pruning old raw .jsonl files and archiving cold tasks. That is far more informative than a tautology, but it never names or contrasts the adjacent journal tools (journal_distill, journal_status, journal_commit_upgrades), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this should run on a schedule, after commits, or only when storage pressure exists, and no conditions or exclusions are stated. 'Retention/archival' implies a maintenance context, but that is inference rather than explicit instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.