List open user decisions

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real value beyond that: it states the tool cannot answer or close a decision, reports when its index is stale relative to source files, and explicitly distinguishes 'register unconfigured' from 'zero open decisions'. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: the primary result is front-loaded, exclusions follow immediately, and edge-case behavior is stated last. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers return fields, deliberate exclusions, read-only guarantees, staleness reporting, and unconfigured-register behavior. Given the two optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters limit and status are already fully documented with defaults and allowed values. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 and resource: it lists pending decisions from the host's decision register, and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (identifier, date, title, status, scope). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like controlcenter_list_locks or controlcenter_list_governance.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when decision metadata is needed, not question texts, options, or recommendations. It explicitly notes that those deeper details are deliberately not returned and should be read in the register itself, but it does not name an alternative sibling tool for that purpose.

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