decisionnode/DecisionNode

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

No annotations are provided, placing full disclosure burden on the description. While 'List' implies read-only access, the description fails to specify return format, pagination behavior, sorting order, or performance implications of retrieving 'all' decisions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a data retrieval 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?

Two well-structured sentences: first declares purpose, second declares usage context. No redundancy or filler. Information density is high with zero waste, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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 2-parameter tool with simple flat schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers intent and usage scenarios. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it should ideally describe what the tool returns (e.g., full records vs summaries, data structure) and confirm read-only safety, which it omits.

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 100%, with both 'project' and 'scope' parameters fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for the project' (aligning with the required parameter) but does not elaborate on the 'scope' filter capability or provide syntax examples beyond what the schema defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all recorded decisions') with specific scope ('for the project'). The verb 'List' and qualifier 'all' effectively distinguishes this from siblings: 'get_decision' (single retrieval), 'search_decisions' (filtered query), and 'add_decision' (creation).

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?

Provides explicit positive guidance ('Use this when you need a complete overview... or when starting work on a new feature area'), giving clear context for appropriate use. Lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer 'search_decisions' over this), preventing a score of 5.

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