get_recent_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this aggregates across all meeting types, how decisions are ordered (recency?), whether results are deduplicated, or what the output structure looks like. While the output schema exists, the behavioral semantics of 'all meetings' and 'recent' remain under-specified.

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?

At one short sentence, the description is extremely concise with zero wasted words. It states the core purpose immediately. However, it may be slightly under-specified given the complexity of sibling differentiation, but as a pure conciseness measurement this is solid.

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?

The tool has an output schema, which covers return values, and 100% parameter schema coverage. However, given the large sibling set with overlapping decision/follow-up tools, more guidance on scope and differentiation would improve completeness. The core retrieval function is adequately described for a simple list tool with good schema support.

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% — both parameters (limit with max results, days_back with lookback period) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides but also doesn't need to, since the schema is complete. 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 "Get recent decisions from all meetings" clearly states the action (get) and resource (recent decisions from meetings). It's clear but not directly differentiated from siblings like get_meeting_decisions or search_decisions. The fact that 'all meetings' is explicitly stated provides some scoping but doesn't clarify the distinction vs other decision-related tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include get_meeting_decisions and search_decisions, so there's ambiguity about how get_recent_decisions differs and when each should be preferred. The description provides no context on use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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