list_taste_decisions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context by framing this as the ledger that evolves after the kickoff interview and by connecting it to record_taste_decision, but it does not describe operational details such as pagination or return format.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys the resource, the action, the optional filters, and the relationship to another tool in a compact way.

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?

For a simple list tool with one required parameter and two optional filters, the schema and annotations already handle most details. The description completes the picture by explaining the ledger's role in the kickoff interview process, making it a sufficiently complete definition.

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%, so the profile, project, and dimension parameters already have clear meanings in the schema. The description mentions optional filtering but does not add anything beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: listing taste/direction/design decisions recorded for a profile, and it names the related record_taste_decision tool. This clearly distinguishes it from generic profile or interview retrieval 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 conveys when to use the tool: to view the evolving decision ledger for a profile, optionally filtered by project or dimension. It points to record_taste_decision as the write counterpart, though it does not explicitly explain when not to use sibling tools like list_taste_profiles or get_taste_interview.

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