list_decisions

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail: default compact rows, full mode, summary_only precedence, expand function, and filters (protected_only, include_superseded). This exceeds the minimal disclosure from 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 dense with version numbers and internal references (v2.1.2 Item 11, 26, 27) that may clutter for an agent. It contains a verbatim quote and acronym (E1). While informative, it could be more streamlined for quick parsing.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing compact vs full rows and expand. However, it lacks explicit output field listing beyond 'one-line decision summary + key fields'. The mention of parity with search_decisions aids context, but return structure could be clearer.

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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: default limit (20, max 200), expand mechanism, interaction between full and summary_only, and version-specific filter tags. This adds meaning beyond raw schema, though some parameter behavior (e.g., since_date format) is already in schema.

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: 'enumerate decisions with filters'. It lists specific filter parameters and explains the gap it closes ('can't list what it remembers'). The inclusion of default vs full modes and the expand function further clarifies 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?

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_decisions. It mentions 'parity with search_decisions' for summary_only, but does not provide direct comparison or exclusion criteria. The default behavior is described, but usage context is implied rather than stated.

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