get_policy_decisions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read, but does not mention whether it requires special permissions, what happens for a nonexistent saga_id, how pagination via limit behaves, or whether results are ordered. The term 'durable' adds a little context but not enough.

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 immediately conveys the operation type and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and many closely-related siblings. The one-sentence description is not sufficient to fully guide an agent on invocation semantics, parameter meaning, or expected results. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that reads governance decisions and safety overrides.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implies saga_id identifies a tenant-owned saga, but it never names or explains saga_id or limit, nor does it describe the default/maximum behavior of limit. The schema only provides structural constraints, not semantic intent.

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 ('Read') with a clear resource ('durable governance decisions and safety overrides') and scopes it to 'one tenant-owned saga', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_policy_status or get_audit_events. An agent can understand what the tool returns and for which entity without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With 17 sibling tools, including get_policy_status and get_audit_events, the absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance leaves the agent to infer the tool's role from its name alone.

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