rlm_decision_query

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It notes that results are sorted by recency and include supersession chain info, and mentions the include_superseded parameter. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are relevant for a query tool.

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 highly concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key features. The first sentence clearly states the verb and resource, and the second adds critical details (filters and output sorting). No extraneous content.

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 query tool with 7 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality (filtering, sorting, supersession info). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities, though slight gaps exist (e.g., exact return format not specified).

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds a high-level summary of filter options and output characteristics but does not significantly augment the schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Query project decisions with filters.' It lists specific filter types (status, impact, scope, tags, text) and mentions output sorting and supersession chain info, differentiating it from sibling decision tools like create or supersede.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rlm_decision_create, rlm_decision_supersede). It does not mention when to avoid it or any prerequisites, relying solely on stating its function.

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