list_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return', implying a read operation, but does not mention ordering of entries, whether the log is complete, or any access requirements. Critical behavioral traits like read-only guarantees or limitations are absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes value with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. It conveys the core purpose and audit trail intent, which is likely sufficient for a read-only list operation. Minor omissions like error cases are acceptable given the low complexity.

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 must compensate. The phrase 'for a plan' indicates that plan_name specifies which plan's log to retrieve, which is minimal but relevant. However, no additional details are given about valid values, defaults, or relation to existing plans.

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 the specific action ('Return the overlord decision log for a plan') and adds the clarifying 'audit trail' note. It is distinct from sibling tools like request_decision or review_story, which deal with creating or reviewing decisions, not listing them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing plan, or differentiate it from other list/read tools like list_plans. No context is given on typical use cases.

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