clarik_decision_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like mutability, side effects, or permissions. It only states 'track and query' without clarifying whether 'add' actions modify state, or if there are any destructive aspects. The mention of 'dates' is misleading as no date parameter exists in the schema.

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, efficient sentence that covers the tool's purpose and key features without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the action enum, the required/optional nature of parameters, or what returns are expected for list and query actions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds confusion by mentioning 'dates' which are not in the schema. It does not clarify the purpose of each action parameter or how they interact, so it adds little value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool tracks and queries architectural decisions, specifying key attributes (dates, reasons, affected files). It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('track and query...decisions') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on architectural decisions rather than generic memory or project tasks.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clarik_memory_learn for general notes), nor does it mention when not to use it or any preconditions.

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