check_decision

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains return format (closest prior decisions, best match first, empty list means none), prerequisite (requires distilled or recorded decisions), and implies read-only nature. Could mention performance or limits.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no redundancy. Every sentence adds informative value. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, description covers return behavior, prerequisites, parameter effects, and user interaction guideline. Missing error handling info but sufficient for the tool's 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%, but description adds value beyond schema: explains 'proposal' as the change/decision to check, 'project' as substring match, and how to interpret results. Schema descriptions are good, but description enriches context.

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 checks if a proposed decision conflicts with prior settled decisions, with specific verb 'check' and resource 'settled decisions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record_decision' (write) and 'recall_decisions' (potential list).

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE acting on a non-trivial decision' and instructs to reconcile conflicts with the user. Also clarifies scope: 'Searches ALL projects unless `project` is given'. Slight ambiguity on 'non-trivial' but overall strong guidance.

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