get_trace_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only' at the beginning and explicitly saying it does not approve, bind, or enforce decisions, which reinforces the non-mutating nature beyond the annotation flags. This context about scope (retained trace, normalized events) is useful.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, then clarifies a potential misassumption. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it returns (decision.* events), the scope (one retained trace), and what it does not do (approve/bind/enforce). It is nearly complete, though it does not elaborate on what 'normalized' means or whether there are limits on event counts, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single parameter trace_id already has a clear description ('The trace ID to inspect for decision events'). The tool description adds only marginal detail about the parameter ('from one retained trace'), which hints at a constraint but does not significantly expand the schema's meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only normalized decision.* events from one retained trace.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trace or query_traces, and the mention of proposal, override, approval, and binding steps further scopes what kind of decisions are covered.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when a workflow includes proposal, override, approval, or binding steps.' It also states what the tool does not do ('Does not approve, bind, or enforce those decisions'), which gives a when-not. However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools, so it falls slightly 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.