get_trace_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 states the action (extract) implies a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or destructive behavior. For a read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated concisely. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and usage. It could mention return format (e.g., 'returns normalized decisions objects'), but is effectively complete for 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% with param 'trace_id' described as 'The trace ID to inspect for decision events.' The description adds context about the workflow steps but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Extract normalized decision.* events from one trace' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_trace or query_traces by focusing on decision events. It also enumerates the types of workflow steps (proposal, override, approval, binding), giving precise context.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'when a workflow includes proposal, override, approval, or binding steps.' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which would raise the score to 5.

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