Find Related Decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the traversal logic (directly produces or via milestone) which is useful behavioral context, but does not describe return format or pagination, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 conveys the core purpose and the two relevant relationship paths without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity, the annotations, and the full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains both ways an artifact can be affected, which is essential context. Minor gaps include no mention of the return format or behavior when no decisions are found, but these are not critical for such a read-only query tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, including descriptions for both 'project' and 'artifact_id'. The description reinforces the meaning of 'artifact_id' by placing it in context, but it does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 precisely states the tool's function: 'Find all decisions that affected a given artifact' with a clear verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact relationship logic (directly produces or decided_in a milestone that produces it), which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by defining what counts as 'affected' (direct production or via a milestone). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would merit a 5.

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