pre_edit_decision_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It explains what the tool surfaces (Tier 1a, Tier 1b), that overridden decisions are filtered out, the recommendation mapping, and the return of the smallest enclosing function symbol (with language limitations). It does not detail side effects or performance, but the read-only nature is implied. Sufficient transparency for an agent.

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 front-loaded purpose and separate paragraphs for tiers, filtering, recommendation mapping, and extra return value. While somewhat verbose, each sentence adds necessary detail. Minor room for tightening, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (recommendation with actions and a function symbol). It covers when to use, what data is surfaced, and filtering logic. For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that intentId is auto-detected, and that forkAuthor, workspaceId, and sessionToken are usually auto-resolved. It also clarifies that repoPath is used to read the file for AST symbol detection. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 what the tool does: 'Check whether the line range about to be edited has prior recorded reasoning attached.' It details two tiers of surfaced context (Tier 1a and Tier 1b), explains what is no longer reported, and maps recommendations to actions. This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pre_edit_acknowledge or get_resolution_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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE editing code in a kawa-indexed repo,' providing clear usage context. It also notes that live-collaborator awareness is handled elsewhere, implicitly guiding when not to rely on this tool for collisions. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other scenarios.

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