fenbs_list_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real traits: result ordering (newest first), the summary-vs-full distinction, and the semantic categories (rules, open questions, decisions a task depends on). It stops short of stating access/permission requirements (awaitingMe merely alludes to 'the person you act for') or pagination/limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then usage triggers, then filters. Dense but every sentence carries weight; the definition of 'rule' is arguably necessary to interpret rulesOnly. Slightly long, but no filler.

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 an all-optional, 8-filter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the conceptual model (rules, open questions, task-linked decisions) and workflow guidance. It leaves pagination, default result size, and cross-board scope unstated, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 63%, so the schema handles part of the load, but the description adds meaning to several params: q's 'DEC-4' example ('finds that one'), task as 'the decisions that task depends on', and rulesOnly as standing rules. It doesn't touch full, deleted, or awaitingMe beyond what the schema says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: 'The board's decisions, newest first,' and defines what a decision record contains (what was decided, by whom, why, open questions). It also disambiguates 'rule' as a decided decision, which lets an agent separate this from fenbs_get_decision (single) and fenbs_add_decision (write).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: 'Search before changing anything that looks deliberate, before recording a new rule (one may already cover it), and before asking a question that may already be answered.' Strong context, but it never names the alternative tools (fenbs_get_decision, fenbs_search) or states when not to use it.

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