aureon_get_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no read-only confirmation beyond the word 'get', no not-found or error behavior, no indication of return shape. Only the safest inference (read-only lookup) is available.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, but the terseness reads as under-specification rather than efficiency, since a complete sentence could have carried the same idea with more useful context.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context, and it omits what a decision record contains, whether the id comes from aureon_list_decisions, and what happens on a miss. For a single-param lookup the burden is modest, but the gaps are real.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description adds no format, source, or provenance detail about where a decision id comes from, leaving it at the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 fragment names a specific verb (get) and resource (decision record) scoped to a single id, so the operation is identifiable. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling aureon_list_decisions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of aureon_list_decisions as the alternative for enumerating decisions, and no stated prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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