decision_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavior beyond annotations: accepting short ID prefixes of at least 4 characters. It does not mention not-found or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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 core instruction is a single front-loaded sentence, and the overall description is short and scannable. The Args block is redundant with the schema, which prevents a higher score, but it doesn't create meaningful bloat.

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 one fully documented required parameter, an output schema available, and safety annotations present, the description plus structured metadata completely specify how to invoke the tool. No critical invocation details are missing.

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 only parameter, decision_id, is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, and the description repeats the same wording rather than adding new meaning. This meets the baseline but provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single decision by ID' – a specific verb, resource, and selection mode. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like decision_list (bulk retrieval) and decision_write (mutation).

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?

The phrase 'a single decision by ID' establishes a clear usage context: use when a specific decision UUID is known. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with decision_list for listing/searching or decision_write for creating, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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