journal_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the persistence behavior (stored as an 'agent_note' event), the storage layer (Layer 1), and the downstream effect (surfaces in distilled task entries). This is meaningful and goes beyond a generic 'record a note' statement.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds relevant information. No filler or redundancy.

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 low parameter count and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, where the note is stored, and how it surfaces later. It does not mention return values, but that is not essential here. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('text' as body with markdown allowed, 'tags' as optional array). The description does not add significant parameter-specific semantics beyond those already present, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific action verb ('Record') and a clearly scoped resource ('free-form decision/abandonment/observation note in the current project's journal'). It also differentiates the tool from siblings like journal_append by describing the storage mechanism ('agent_note event in Layer 1') and downstream effect ('surfaces in distilled task entries').

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 conveys when to use the tool: for decision, abandonment, or observation notes in the current project's journal. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate selection.

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