list_taste_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that this is a 'ledger' that evolves over time, hinting at its historical nature. No details on pagination, ordering, or limitations, but the transparency is adequate given 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 efficient sentence that states the action, resource, filters, and contextual role. No redundant words or fluff. It earns its place.

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 list tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description explains what it lists and the filtering options. It could mention the return format or ordering, but it is largely complete and leaves no major ambiguity.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces 'optionally filtered by project or dimension', which mirrors the schema but does not add new meaning. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 lists 'taste/direction/design decisions' for a profile, uses a specific verb ('List'), and references the companion tool 'record_taste_decision' for distinction. It also provides context ('the ledger that evolves the kickoff interview') that solidifies its role.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decision_get' or 'decision_list'. The only reference is to 'record_taste_decision', which is the creation counterpart, not a sibling listing tool. The description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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