align_get_decision_timeline

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 and the description only needs to add context. It does add value by naming the event types that appear in the history, but says nothing about ordering guarantees beyond "chronological", result volume, or whether the history is complete or truncated.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and enumerates event types, the second states the use case. Slight overlap between "chronological history of events" and the parenthetical list keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the resource, the event types returned, and the reason to call it. Missing only pagination/volume context, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents decision_id. The description only reinforces that the ID identifies which decision's history is returned, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema; a 3 is the baseline here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get the chronological history of events for a decision") and enumerates the event categories returned (created, conflicts detected, acknowledged or resolved), so an agent can distinguish it from the rationale and topic-timeline siblings by resource type. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives a use case ("Use to understand how a decision has evolved over time") which implies when to reach for it, but offers no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives such as align_get_decision_rationale for the reasoning rather than the timeline. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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