AtlaSent — Get Decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: which fields are returned, what include_trace adds, and the required audit:read permission.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the optional flag behavior is stated briefly, and the auth requirement is included without wasting words.

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 get-by-id tool with only two simple parameters, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly: the resource, the lookup key, the optional expansion behavior, and the permission requirement. No output schema exists, but the returned fields are enumerated sufficiently.

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 schema already documents evaluation_id as a UUID and include_trace's effect. The description mostly restates this information without adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one authorization decision (execution evaluation) by id'. It also lists the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling list/evaluate/check tools.

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 makes it clear this is the get-by-id tool for a single decision and explains the optional include_trace behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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