get_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses the default behavior when project is empty, but it says nothing about permissions, result limits/pagination, or whether the vault must be initialized first. Modest disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a compact Args block; the core behavior is front-loaded with no filler. The docstring-style 'Args:' formatting is slightly mechanical but costs nothing in clarity.

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 explained, and the single optional parameter is documented. Still, for a tool with no annotations, it omits obvious operational details such as result limits or ordering, leaving the agent with a minimally viable definition.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names the 'project' argument, marks it optional, states it filters by project name, and explains that an empty value returns all decisions. Only the accepted matching format (exact name vs substring) is left unspecified.

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 verb and resource: 'Get decision records from the vault.' An agent knows exactly what it retrieves, though the description never differentiates this retrieval from sibling search tools like search_notes or query_graph, 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 and no alternatives named. The only usage information is the parameter's fallback behavior ('If empty, returns all decisions'), which explains filtering, not tool selection against the many sibling retrieval tools.

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