get_decision_chain

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral details: backward traversal, oldest-first ordering, cycle protection. This adds context beyond the input schema, though does not mention side effects or required permissions.

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 concise sentences: first explains the action (walk backward), second describes the output (oldest-first, cycle-protected). No wasted words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers input, algorithm, output order, and safety. Could mention error handling for invalid IDs, but not critical for a simple traversal.

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% with a clear description for 'id'. The description reinforces that the id is 'Any DecisionId in the chain' but adds little new meaning beyond 'from the supplied id'. 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 the tool traverses the supersedes link backward to the original proposal, with specific return order and cycle protection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version_chain or get_ancestors by specifying the exact link type.

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?

While not explicitly stating alternatives, the description implies when to use: for tracing decision supersession chains. Mentioning 'supersedes link' and 'original proposal' hints at the specific use case, but could be stronger with direct comparison to other traversal tools.

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