Get follow-up questions for a decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful filtering context that only unanswered, high-value questions are returned. It does not disclose behavior around invalid episode_id or how many results come back when limit is omitted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and ending with the workflow nudge. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation in the schema, and an ambiguous episode_id, the description should carry more of the burden. It omits result structure, limit behavior, and explicit linkage to the amendment tool, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters. The description never explains what episode_id identifies or what limit controls (default 3, max 10), so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the resource (follow-up questions about a recorded decision) and implies a specific scope ('most valuable unanswered'), but it leads with a noun phrase rather than a verb and never states the operation outright. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it relies on the title for the 'get' framing.

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?

'Ask them, then amend' implies a workflow that leads into a decision amendment, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never names the sibling tool (twin_amend_decision) nor states conditions such as when to call this versus twin_brief or twin_review_queue.

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