ctx_decisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Get all...') but does not elaborate on potential side effects, authentication needs, or data volume. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds basic context but is not rich in behavioral details.

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 a single sentence with 5 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is meaningful: 'Get' signals retrieval, 'all' indicates scope, 'technical/architecture decisions with reasoning' defines the content. No wasted text.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, no required arguments, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose clearly. It could be slightly enhanced by hinting at the output format or typical usage context, but it adequately serves its purpose for a parameterless tool.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is complete by default. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add param-level guidance, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds value by clarifying the specific type of data returned (decisions with reasoning).

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 uses specific verbs ('Get') and a clear resource ('technical/architecture decisions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by narrowing the scope to decisions with reasoning, which is a distinct subset of contextual data not covered by tools like ctx_search or ctx_get.

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 when to use this tool (when you need technical/architecture decisions with reasoning) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like ctx_get or ctx_search. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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