extract_decision_record

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses error behavior (FileNotFoundError, ValueError) and the full return structure, which is helpful. However, it never explicitly states whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. 'Extract' implies no mutation, but the agent is left to infer it, which is a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, Raises. The introductory line is direct. The 'Cognitive Notary' context sentence is extra but brief and not harmful. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the argument semantics, the return categories, and error conditions. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but these are expected to be covered elsewhere; the missing piece is an explicit read-only statement, which is already noted under behavioral transparency. Overall the description is functionally complete.

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 input schema only defines thread_id as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description's Args section adds the meaning 'Thread identifier of closed debate', which is essential and compensates for the schema gap. It could be more detailed (e.g., where to find it), but for a single obvious parameter it's sufficient.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Extract') and a concrete resource ('DecisionRecord'), and qualifies the source as 'a closed debate'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_decisions (search) and get_debate (get the debate itself). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 clearly states the prerequisite that the debate must be closed, and documents that ValueError is raised for ACTIVE or PAUSED debates, so an agent knows when it is appropriate to call. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'do not use when...' for specific scenarios beyond the state condition. Clear context, no exclusions.

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