decision_history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that the tool returns the 'complete supersession lineage' ordered 'oldest to newest,' providing valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the purpose and key details. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

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 read-only. The description explains what is returned (complete supersession lineage ordered oldest to newest). Although there is no output schema, the description is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds meaningful context: 'Existing decision id anywhere in the supersession lineage.' This clarifies that the id can be any node in the lineage, not just the root, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 returns 'the complete supersession lineage for a decision, ordered oldest to newest.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), specifies the resource ('supersession lineage'), and includes ordering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'decision_get' or 'decision_list'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving history, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools like 'decision_get' or 'decision_list'.

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