recent_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states it returns decisions 'from the local ledger' (indicating read-only), 'newest first' (ordering), and includes 'risk and timestamps' (fields). It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects) and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, fields, and parameter usage without needing to detail return format.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'limit' parameter fully: how many entries to return, valid range (1-500), and default (20). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'most recent guard decisions' from the 'local ledger' and specifies the data fields (allowed, blocked, approved, risk, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from siblings like assess_action and guard_action, which perform actions rather than list decisions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (assess_action, guard_action, verify_ledger). It does not mention limitations, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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