list_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes scoping via read key, default time window (7 days), and sort order (newest first). However, it lacks detail on the exact return fields or behavior under errors, which slightly reduces transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and includes no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, ordering, and tenant scoping well. It could be improved by mentioning the main fields in each decision record, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters 'from', 'to', and 'limit'. No extra context about defaults or constraints beyond schema descriptions.

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 AI decisions for the calling tenant within a time window, returned newest first. It distinguishes itself from siblings (record_decision, verify_decision) through its focus on listing, compliance, and audit.

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 mentions use cases: compliance review, audit prep, or agent self-inspection. It also notes that cross-tenant reads require an admin read key. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context of siblings and clear purpose provides adequate guidance.

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