get_project_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. It discloses that decisions are summary-only and mentions related files and constraint violations. However, it does not address performance, authentication, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 bullet points and clear sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it includes details on return structure, this is helpful given the lack of an output schema. Slightly verbose but efficient.

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 a tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the return format well, detailing each decision field. It also notes the need for get_decision_detail for full information. Adequately complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating that some parameters are auto-resolved. 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 clearly states 'Get all decisions recorded for a project across all intents.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('decisions') with a clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_session_decisions and get_decision_detail.

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 clear usage scenarios ('Use this to review the project's decision history') and lists concrete use cases. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name direct alternatives, the sibling tool names imply differentiation.

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