get_item_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that it gets decisions, but does not describe return format, sorting, pagination, error handling for missing items, or permission requirements. The phrase 'Get all' implies a read operation but adds no additional context.

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 short sentence that is directly on point. No unnecessary words or redundant details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the core purpose but does not mention what items are returned, whether an empty list is returned when no decisions exist, or any pagination limits. However, for a straightforward getter, this is minimally acceptable.

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?

The schema description for item_id is merely 'item_id parameter', which is tautological and provides no real meaning beyond the parameter name. The tool description does imply that item_id identifies the item whose decisions are fetched, but this is minimal. Since the parameter is self-explanatory and only one exists, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all decisions for an item'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_decision/delete_decision (which are mutations) and get_item (which returns the item itself). The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, nor does it specify contexts (e.g., when you need a historical record of decisions vs. just current status). It is a bare statement with no practical usage notes.

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