thth_topic_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and the freshness comparison behavior, which is useful for safety. However, it does not explain what 'freshness' means, how the result is returned, or any permissions, side effects, or failure modes. Some transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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 two short, efficient sentences. The primary purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, followed by the conditional freshness behavior. No filler or redundant wording.

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 no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and read-only nature, but leaves 'freshness' undefined and does not describe the return value, how conflicts are surfaced, or prerequisites for use. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete in a way that could cause agent confusion.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'decision_id'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 reads a saved decision ('保存済みの判断を読む') and explicitly notes it is read-only ('読むだけ'). This distinguishes it from evaluation or context tools like thth_topic_evaluate or thth_topic_context, and the freshness comparison hints at its specific function. A specific verb and resource with enough differentiation.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to read a saved decision and check freshness against the current manuscript) but does not explicitly name alternatives, give exclusion criteria, or state when not to use it. The context is present but underdeveloped compared to siblings.

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