list_writes

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description reinforces that by promising metadata rows and explicitly stating 'never note content.' It adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing the exact fields returned (seq, timestamp, tool, paths, undoable) and explaining the pre-image journaling mechanism that makes undo_write possible.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the main purpose, then add the key behavioral constraint and output shape. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields and their nature, so an agent knows what response to expect. Combined with full schema coverage for optional parameters, this is complete enough for a low-complexity list tool.

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%, with both path and limit already described in the input schema. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details; it adds context about the journal concept but no additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('List recent writes') and the resource ('the journal'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes this from content-focused tools by explicitly noting it returns metadata and never note content, which separates it from siblings like list_notes.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for reviewing write operations and identifying entries that can be reverted with undo_write. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of list_notes' or list exclusions, but the connection to undo_write and the metadata-rows framing gives enough context for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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