kage_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('summarize') but does not explicitly state read-only, side effects, permissions, or other behaviors. Lacks details on output format or potential impacts.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the list of covered items is dense and could be better structured (e.g., bullets). No wasted words, but room for improvement in readability.

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 no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description should clarify what the summary looks like (format, depth) and provide parameter context. It lists covered topics but omits important behavioral and output details.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_dir) with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not clarify the parameter's meaning, format, or usage. It only mentions 'for a repo' vaguely, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.

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 it summarizes 'Kage why-memory for a repo' and lists specific content types (decisions, gotchas, etc.). It uses a specific verb+resource pattern, but the broad list and term 'why-memory' could cause confusion. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like kage_context, but the purpose is generally clear.

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 (e.g., kage_context, kage_risk). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or 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.