decision_review

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

The description reinforces readOnlyHint with explicit 'READ-ONLY' and explains it mutates nothing, proposes and cites reasons, and auto-detects duplicate stubs. It also describes conditional behavior with root_path, adding value beyond the annotation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with usage triggers, no fluff. Dense but organized, every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only review tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and conditional behavior. Missing output format is acceptable since no output schema exists and the description gives adequate context.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description doesn't add significant new parameter semantics beyond what schema provides; it references root_path but schema already explains it in detail.

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 function: a review-debt inbox that buckets overdue decisions into still_true / changed / archive / needs_evidence with recommended actions. It uses a specific verb ('Call this...') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on review/analysis rather than mutation or checking.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('before making new decisions, at session end, or when the user asks if a decision is still valid or what's overdue') and directs follow-up actions via decision_refresh / decision_log, providing clear workflow context and alternatives.

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