decisions_without_rationale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does define the exact selection semantics (`justifies` edge direction = inbound, any status), which is the key behavior, but it never states that this is a read-only listing, nor anything about ordering, volume, or scope beyond the edge filter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the discriminating predicate is stated immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to cover. What remains thin is the operational context (read-only nature, expected result volume, relationship to `orphans`), which keeps this short of a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics for the description to supply. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (decisions) and a precise filter predicate (no inbound `justifies` edge), which is far more specific than a tautology. It is not explicitly differentiated from the closest sibling, `orphans`, which is a broader no-connection query, so the agent must infer the distinction from the filter text alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus `orphans`, `open_questions`, or `contradictions`, all of which return filtered node sets. The predicate is stated but the triggering condition and exclusions are absent.

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