query_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Search' reasonably implies a read-only lookup, and the project_root guidance adds an important operational requirement. However, it does not explicitly disclose side-effect freedom, result behavior, or any caveats about how searches are performed.

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 short sentences, both purposeful and front-loaded. The primary action and purpose come first, followed by the critical project_root instruction. No fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and the most important call requirement, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, with no parameter explanations and no guidance about alternatives like ask_human or check_assumption, the definition has meaningful gaps.

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. It only clarifies project_root; the meanings of limit, status, keyword, and category are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults. This is a clear gap for a tool with five parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search past decisions'. It also gives the intent ('for context and consistency'), which clearly distinguishes this read-oriented tool from mutation siblings like confirm_decision and revoke_decision.

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 phrase 'for context and consistency' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It also gives a concrete per-call instruction about project_root. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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