decision_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'detects when you changed your mind about something', which hints at analytical behavior, but does not clarify output format, data sources, permissions required, or any limitations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and an additional behavioral hint. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), 0 parameters, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with analytical functions like detecting mind changes, more context would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing parameter details.

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: 'Show decision timeline — how decisions evolved over time, grouped by topic.' It specifies the verb ('show'), resource ('decision timeline'), and scope ('grouped by topic'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_decisions' or 'detect_contradictions', which may have overlapping functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It mentions detecting when you changed your mind, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'extract_decisions' or 'detect_contradictions'. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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