recent_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. It explains that the tool merges manual notes and contextual hits, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or any auth/rate-limit constraints. For a query tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that pack the purpose, examples, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the concept of results (decision-shaped activity) but does not detail the exact return fields. For a moderate-complexity tool with 4 parameters, it covers the essential context. It could be improved by mentioning result structure.

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 50% (start and end lack descriptions). The description adds context about the date range but does not specify format (e.g., ISO 8601). It compensates partially by explaining the overall purpose, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for each parameter.

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 tool finds decision-shaped activity in a date range, specifying it merges manual notes and content matching keywords like 'decided' or 'RFC'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_activities by focusing on decision-related content.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: before answering 'what did we decide about X' or composing a quarterly summary. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but provides clear context for its application.

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