oc_journal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, implying possible writes, but the description describes only a query operation. No behavioral traits beyond the contradictory annotation are disclosed, such as whether the tool modifies state, requires auth, or has rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, actions, and usage boundaries. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: actions, their outputs (e.g., 'compact JSON resume handoff'), and usage boundaries. It could be more complete with details on error behavior or pagination for the 'recent' action, but overall it is adequate.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb 'Query' and resource 'tool call journal', and enumerates three actions with brief explanations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like oc_journal_compact, missing an opportunity for clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('reviewing session history, restoring context, auditing') and when NOT to use (use read_page or inspect for live page state), with concrete alternative tool names. This is excellent guidance.

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