decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior and enumerates the returned fields (id, scope, status such as open/binding, version, rule text, review fields). It omits pagination/result-size limits and any auth or permission notes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by return shape and then alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned decision fields and their possible statuses. The only meaningful gap for a list tool is pagination or result-size behavior, which is unmentioned.

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% and the single scope parameter is already documented with an example and the omit-to-list-everything behavior. The description only restates that the filter is optional, adding no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the project's decisions") plus the filtering scope, and explicitly names two sibling tools it is not. An agent can distinguish it from query and check_decisions without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use query to search by topic, use check_decisions to test a diff against decisions, and omit scope to list everything. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are stated.

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