kb_journal_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only'. Beyond annotations, it discloses concrete behavior: newest-first ordering, limit clamping to [1, 200], and since_id semantics for strictly newer atoms. This is substantive, non-obvious behavioral detail that helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a specific, useful behavior. There is no wasted wording, and the read-only note is short but reinforces the safe-read nature.

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?

For a simple read-only fetch tool with annotations present, the description covers ordering, limit behavior, since_id semantics, and the relationship to kb_journal. The main missing piece is the meaning of the required app_id parameter, and with no output schema the return shape is only vaguely implied as 'atoms'.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does for two parameters: limit is explained as clamped to [1, 200], and since_id is described as returning only atoms strictly newer than the given id. However, the required parameter app_id is not explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a meaningful gap for a required argument.

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 returns recent kb_journal atoms for domain 'journal', newest first, which is a specific verb + resource + ordering. It identifies itself as the companion read-back seam to kb_journal and says 'Read-only', differentiating it from the sibling kb_journal, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any other sibling.

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?

It provides useful context — that Grove's journal_reader calls this in-process or over HTTP — and implies this is the read side of kb_journal. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor gives any exclusions or conditions that would steer an agent away from siblings.

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