ddflow_decision_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and the description discloses what the tool returns in terms of content. It does not explicitly state side-effect absence, but for a read tool the semantics are sufficiently transparent.

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 filler. The core purpose and content are front-loaded, and the sibling comparison is placed exactly where it adds value. 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what content it returns, and when to use it relative to its sibling. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Decision id.' The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already fully covers the parameter. 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('ONE architectural decision in full'), and enumerates the content: context, decision, consequences, and rejected alternatives. It also distinguishes itself from ddflow_decision_list, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts with ddflow_decision_list ('gives you the titles') and tells the agent when to use this tool: before working against a decision and especially before proposing something it already considered. This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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