decisionnode/DecisionNode

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden and successfully conveys the mandatory workflow gate behavior, consequences of skipping ('inconsistency and wasted rework'), and conditional logic based on results. Minor gap: does not describe return value structure despite no output schema being present.

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?

Well front-loaded with critical 'MANDATORY' warning. Structure flows logically: imperative -> triggers -> examples -> result handling. Slightly heavy on ALL CAPS emphasis and repetition ('ANY' appears multiple times), though justified given the tool's gatekeeper role in preventing rework.

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?

Comprehensive for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers workflow integration, cross-tool dependencies (list_projects), and result handling. Would benefit from brief mention of what the return value contains (e.g., 'returns matching decision records') to fully compensate for missing output schema.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage (baseline 3), description adds substantial value: concrete query examples ('button styling', 'API design') and extraction logic for the 'project' parameter ('Extract this from the user's active file path'), plus cross-reference to list_projects. Exceeds baseline significantly.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool checks for 'existing conventions' and 'decisions' before code changes. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (add_decision, get_decision, list_decisions) by emphasizing its search/query nature and mandatory pre-flight role in the workflow.

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 when-to-use with exhaustive trigger list ('add a feature, modify code, fix a bug...'), mandatory ordering ('Call this FIRST'), and clear alternative actions ('If no decisions exist, proceed freely; if decisions exist, FOLLOW them'). Also correctly references sibling tool list_projects as prerequisite when project is uncertain.

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