decisoes

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context not in the annotations: the default scope silently excludes superseded decisions unless incluir_substituidas is set, and results are ordered most-recent-first.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the default-scope constraint and the escape hatch both front-loaded where an agent will see them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers default scope, ordering, and the two most consequential options; the only gap is the undocumented limite parameter, which is minor given the sensible default of 30.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives meaning to projeto (filter by project) and incluir_substituidas (include full history), but says nothing about limite, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific behavior: listing registered decisions, most recent first, with a default scope of only those valid today. It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like registrar_decisao, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context: default returns only currently valid decisions, and it names the two levers (projeto filter, incluir_substituidas=True) for widening or narrowing the query. No explicit exclusion against alternative tools, but the guidance is actionable.

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