get_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it returns only live decisions, the sort order, and the output keys. It does not mention destruction or auth, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, clarifies 'Live', distinguishes from a sibling, and lists return keys. No wasted 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?

Given a simple schema (1 param, list output), the description covers behavior, return keys, and differentiation from one sibling. It could address get_decision, but overall sufficient.

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 0% and the description does not add any semantics to the project_key parameter beyond the obvious. It does not explain formatting or constraints.

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 it returns LIVE decisions for a project, newest first, and defines 'Live' as statuses in (active, accepted, validated). It distinguishes from get_known_traps, which returns incorrect/reverted decisions.

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 directs agents to use get_known_traps for incorrect/reverted decisions, but does not mention other alternatives or conditions for not using this tool.

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