journal_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses embedding-based semantic search, default agent scoping, the inherit_from marking with 'inherited_from' response field, and superseded entry handling. No contradictions with missing annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs several details without verbosity. While dense, it could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points for defaults), but remains efficient.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most critical aspects: parameter defaults, filtering options, and response markings. It omits details about the response structure beyond the 'inherited_from' field, which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema: explains 'query' as embedded and cosine-similarity ranked, clarifies include_superseded default, and details inherit_from response behavior. This additional context raises the score.

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 starts with 'Search YOUR journal' and details specific filtering by entry_type, tags, and semantic query, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember' which likely handle broader memory retrieval. The inherit_from clause further specifies predecessor journal access.

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 explains default behavior (own agent_id) and the inherit_from alternative for predecessor journals. It also clarifies the default exclusion of superseded entries. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, though the context is sufficient for an informed agent.

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