List architectural decisions in force; optionally include superseded ones to show how the architecture evolved.
Every architectural decision in force. Superseded ones are hidden unless you ask for them — they are kept, never deleted, because how the architecture got here is what a rebuild needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Include superseded decisions. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: superseded decisions are kept (never deleted) and hidden unless requested, which is valuable for the agent to understand persistence and retrieval semantics. It does not cover permissions or return format, but for a simple read/list operation, this is substantial transparency.
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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the rationale for keeping superseded decisions is a meaningful addition that explains the 'all' parameter's existence. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with a single optional boolean, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned (decisions in force), the default filtering, and the rationale for the option. It does not describe the output structure, but no output schema is present, and for a list tool, the agent likely knows the decision entities from related tools. The description is adequate without oversharing.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters; the single 'all' parameter already has a clear description ('Include superseded decisions'). The description adds a bit of rationale ('how the architecture got here is what a rebuild needs') but no new semantic meaning about the parameter's format or effect beyond what the schema states. 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's function: listing architectural decisions that are in force, with the option to include superseded ones. It uses a specific verb ('list' implied) and resource ('architectural decisions'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like ddflow_decision_show by focusing on the full set rather than a single decision. The behavior of hiding superseded decisions by default is explicit.
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?
The description implicitly communicates when to use the tool: to see currently enforced decisions, and optionally include superseded ones via the 'all' parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives (e.g., ddflow_decision_show) or state conditions for choosing this tool over others. It provides context about the default behavior but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.