check_decision_alignment

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says it 'checks alignment' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what output it returns (boolean, summary, etc.), or any side effects. For a check tool, read-only behavior is expected but not confirmed.

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 that is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Despite having no parameters, the tool's behavior is under-specified: no output schema, no explanation of how it determines the 'technology change' from context, and no behavioral details. For a tool that likely relies on conversation state, this is insufficient.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline is 4. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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 checks alignment of a technology change with recorded decisions, specifying the verb 'check' and the resource 'recorded decisions'. It distinguishes from sibling 'decision_memory' which likely stores decisions. However, it does not specify what input is needed (e.g., which change) given the empty schema.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ecosystem_pulse' or 'dependency_health'. It does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where it should not be used.

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