get_session_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that decisions are 'summary-only' and that they can be edited or removed via other tools (implying mutability). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 very concise: three clear sections (purpose, usage, return format). Bullet points are used for returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers the return structure (intentId, decisions, count) and notes that decisions are summary-only. It provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation of results, though a note on optional parameters like forkAuthor would be nice but not essential.

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 coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get all decisions recorded in the current session for an intent.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_decision_detail (full decision) and record_decision (create). It precisely identifies what is retrieved and the scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this before committing to review what decisions were captured during development.' Also tells when not to use alternatives: for full rationale, call get_decision_detail. This provides clear decision-making guidance for the agent.

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