list_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('oldest first'), but says nothing about pagination, empty results, permissions, or whether archived projects are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ordering detail earns its place. Slightly terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should indicate the shape of returned decisions and whether results are paginated or limited.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it only weakly ties the sole projectId parameter to 'for a project'. No ID format, validation, or behavior for invalid/foreign project IDs is given.

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 design decisions) plus scope (for a project), which is distinguishable from the sibling add_decision. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the read-vs-write distinction is clear from the verb.

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?

'List ... for a project' implies a read of existing decisions scoped by projectId, and the add_decision sibling covers the write path. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named, so guidance is only implied.

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