decision_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that by explaining the return semantics, the meaning of 'review_triggered' as an opposite signal, and the nuanced case where a decision is both a conflict and a review trigger. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps an agent act correctly on the result.

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 logically structured: state purpose, list return values, provide usage directive, then explain the subtle review_triggered behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and interpretation, which it does thoroughly. It covers the three statuses, the review_triggered list, how to handle conflicts, and the dual conflict/review-trigger case. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('entity_id' and 'proposed_action') already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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+resource: 'Check a proposed action against all active decisions.' It clearly states the returned statuses ('clear', 'caution', 'conflict') and the 'review_triggered' list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like action_guard or memory_check. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE taking actions that might contradict prior decisions' and provides a clear conditional: 'If status is conflict, do NOT proceed without explicit user confirmation.' This gives strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the conflict case.

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