list_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral details about cursor pagination and the ability to scope results project-wide or by issue, which are not captured by annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and communicates scope and pagination without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with strong annotations, a descriptive schema, and an output schema, this description covers the essentials: what it lists, the optional scoping, and pagination behavior. No additional context is strictly necessary.

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 descriptions cover 4 of 5 parameters. The description adds meaning to the cursor parameter by explicitly mentioning 'cursor pagination', which is the one parameter lacking a schema description. This slightly elevates it above the baseline.

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 it lists decisions and specifies both scoping options (project-wide or issue-scoped) and the pagination mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or get_issue_activity, which operate on different resources.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list decisions, optionally scoped by issue. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over list_issues or similar list tools.

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