get_recent_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It merely states the output format but omits important details such as whether the tool requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles cases with no decisions in the date range.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should elaborate on the structure of the returned Markdown string (e.g., includes title, date, module, reasoning). It also does not explain how the tool behaves with no results or the order of decisions.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (days, module, repo). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates the existence of parameters. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the work.

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 action (returns), the resource (architectural and technical decisions), the scope (past N days), and the output format (Markdown string). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_decision (which writes) or search_context (which searches more broadly).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_context or search_context. It implies usage for recent decisions but lacks guidance on when filtering by module or repo is appropriate or when to prefer other tools.

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