tidy_decisions

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

The description marks the tool as read-only and includes a clear '[NOT IMPLEMENTED YET]' warning, which are useful behavioral signals. However, since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose what happens if the tool is called despite being unimplemented or any other side effects.

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 and front-loads the critical '[NOT IMPLEMENTED YET]' warning. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured. It is effective without being verbose.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation and read-only nature. However, it lacks detail on the output format or behavior when called despite the not-implemented flag, which agents would need for safe interaction.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to document. The description still explains what the tool does operationally, which is sufficient. With no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to search the decision record, find components lacking rationale, and detect contradictions. It uses specific verbs and distinct outcomes. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is distinct from the other tidy_* 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 implies when to use this tool (for auditing decisions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many tidy_* siblings. Given the large family of tools, this is a gap.

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