get_decisions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey read-only retrieval and the four status categories in scope, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, scoping, or auth. Since the tool takes zero parameters, it presumably returns everything unfiltered, which the description never states.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the status list attached compactly. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be moved earlier.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should hint at what a decision record looks like (id, status, rationale) or whether all statuses come back together. As written, an agent knows the topic but not the shape or size of the response.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical about statuses describes returned data rather than inputs, which is still useful orientation.

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?

"Retrieve previously recorded technical decisions and constraints" gives a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (decisions/constraints), and the parenthetical enumerates the status values returned. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as search_context or get_file_history, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by "previously recorded" — the agent gathers this is for looking up already-captured decisions rather than creating new ones. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives like search_context when a keyword lookup is wanted.

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