extract_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'extract' and 'call automatically,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or what the extraction entails (e.g., format, scope). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Call automatically...') is somewhat vague and could be more precise, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema helps, but more context is needed for effective use.

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 adds no information about parameters like 'project_id' or 'since'—not explaining what they mean, how they affect extraction, or their optional nature. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves semantics unclear.

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: 'Extract decisions from session logs and decision logs.' It specifies the verb ('extract') and resources ('session logs and decision logs'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'decision_timeline' or 'recall', which might have overlapping functions.

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 minimal guidance: 'Call automatically when asked about past decisions.' This implies usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No comparison to siblings like 'decision_timeline' or 'recall' is made, leaving gaps in selection criteria.

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