list_decisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it states the tool is read-only and makes no changes, explains the one-to-one correspondence with request_decision calls, lists the fields each entry carries, and clarifies that an empty list is normal rather than an error.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds parameter semantics, return behavior, and usage guidance in a logical order. Every paragraph earns its place without redundant wording.

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 the low complexity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the log contains, how to read it, when to use it, and what empty results mean. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, but the description compensates by defining plan_name as the plan's name as returned by list_plans or passed to save_plan/ingest_plan. This gives the agent concrete sources for valid values despite the sparse schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return the decision log (audit trail) for a plan, with every ruling made by request_decision, oldest first. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_plans and request_decision by focusing on historical rulings rather than plans or new decisions.

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?

It explicitly says to call this before escalating a similar decision with request_decision, or when a human wants to review the overlord's rulings. It does not list exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended contexts are clearly described.

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