Search Decisions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so agent knows it's safe and idempotent. Description adds useful behavioral details: returns summary view (id+title+decision only) to preserve context budget, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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's straightforward search functionality, three parameters, and no output schema, the description fully covers: input (keyword search across fields), output (summary view), use case (anti-repetition), and link to sibling for details. No gaps.

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 67% with meaningful descriptions for query and workflow_id. Description adds minimal extra semantics beyond 'search by keyword' and the fields. Does not elaborate on limit's purpose or constraints beyond schema's min/max/default. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'search' and resource 'decisions', and specifies the fields searched (title, decision, context, rationale). Clearly differentiates from siblings like cph_decision_get (full details) and cph_decision_list (list all).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'CALL THIS before making any significant architectural choice to check if it was already decided.' Brands it as 'primary anti-repetition tool.' Also clarifies when to use the sibling cph_decision_get for full details.

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