kage_decisions

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

The description reinforces the annotation's readOnlyHint by stating 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any memory.' It also details the return format (grouped entries with titles, types, etc.) and mentions call-outs for weak or undocumented hot paths, providing rich behavioral context.

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 a clear purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral notes. It could be slightly more concise but remains focused and front-loaded with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns, its use cases, and that it is read-only. This is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 sole parameter 'project_dir' is fully described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the repository root.' The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets baseline expectations.

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 defines the tool as summarizing the repo's 'why' memory, listing specific content types (decisions, gotchas, conventions) and distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like kage_context.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to brief yourself on a repo before changing it' and 'to audit where knowledge is thin.' It implies not to use it for modification but does not list alternatives explicitly.

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