art.memory.get_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not state potential outcomes such as 'returns null if not found' or error behavior. There is no information about side effects or return structure. The description adds minimal value beyond the verb.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 trivial getter, the description covers the essential input (id) and implies a return of the record. However, it omits details like return format, not-found handling, or whether the record is returned in full. Since there is no output schema, these gaps reduce completeness. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the schema already documents the id parameter with an example format. The description merely repeats 'by its ID', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 ('get') and resource ('art decision record') with a clear key ('by its ID'). It is unambiguous and naturally distinct from sibling art.memory.find_decisions, which implies searching/filtering. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 implies usage when an ID is known, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with find_decisions. It provides no exclusions or alternatives. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but leaves the agent to infer the differentiation from naming conventions.

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