Journal Mandala MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: the tool creates a new entry (implying a write/mutation operation), specifies default values for title (auto-generated from first 20 characters) and date (today's Japan time), and mentions the requirement for at least one of title/event/thought. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage rules into bullet points for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the creation action, parameter requirements, and defaults, but misses details on permissions, error cases, and what the tool returns, which are important for a write tool with no structured output information.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that event and thought are optional but at least one of title/event/thought is required, and that the date defaults to today's Japan time if omitted. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema does most of the work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Journal Mandala に新しい日記エントリを作成する' (creates a new journal entry in Journal Mandala). It specifies the verb (create/作成する) and resource (journal entry/日記エントリ). However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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 implied usage guidance by stating that at least one of title/event/thought is required, and that the date defaults to today's date in Japan time if omitted. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (none mentioned) or any prerequisites or exclusions, keeping it at a basic level.

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