check_decision_alignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Check whether' aligns as a read-only operation. It adds a small behavioral detail by indicating the tool consults 'recorded decisions' as the data source, but it doesn't disclose error handling, return behavior, or what happens on misalignment, so it offers only marginal extra context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb ('Check'), and immediately followed by a practical trigger condition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only, no-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: purpose and when to call. It could elaborate on how to interpret the result or whether the check is blocking, but given the absent output schema and simple nature, it's largely complete.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the rubric sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (none needed), but it does imply the tool operates on a global decision set without requiring arguments, which is consistent with a 0-param interface.

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 it checks whether a technology/pattern aligns with recorded decisions, using a specific verb+resource construction ('Check whether... aligns with the developer's recorded decisions'). It also differentiates from siblings like decision_memory and agent_memory by specifying its exact role in the workflow, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('Call BEFORE suggesting a major tech change, new library, or architecture shift'), which effectively guides the agent on appropriate invocation timing. However, it does not name alternative tools or mention when *not* to use it, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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