dna_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing. 'Mined from git history' weakly implies a read-only retrieval over a repository, but it omits whether a repo/path is required, whether results are cached, what scope 'project' selects, or how failures surface.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding and no wasted clauses, so it is not verbose. However it is a bare fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, and its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 2-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not say what a result contains, how results are limited, or what the params mean. The absence of an output schema means the description should carry more, not less.

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 0% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. Neither 'limit' (default value, max) nor 'project' (what identifier form, which repo) is explained anywhere, so the two parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name (dna_decisions -> 'architectural decisions') with only the source qualifier 'mined from git history' added. There is no verb describing the operation and nothing that separates it from siblings dna_map, dna_impact, or dna_plan.

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 when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative tool is mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be preferred over dna_map or dna_impact. There is no misleading statement, but there is also no routing information at all.

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