get_project_decisions

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about flexible project lookup and the priority order (project_id > workspace_path > project_name), which goes beyond the schema. It does not detail the return format or error behavior, but the read-only nature is implied by 'retrieve'.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with the single-sentence purpose, then adds a brief note on flexible lookup, a priority line, and a focused WHEN TO USE section. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use cases, identifier resolution, and priority ordering well. It doesn't explain the response structure or edge cases (e.g., what if no decisions exist), but the purpose and usage context are strong enough for most agent scenarios.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that identifiers can be used in any combination and resolving priority, which enhances understanding of how the parameters relate. This is meaningful value beyond the 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 retrieves all recorded architectural and technical decisions for a project, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_decision (write) and search_decisions (search) by emphasizing 'all recorded' 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 WHEN TO USE section provides concrete scenarios (before making new decisions, understanding architectural direction, checking for contradictions) and a strong recommendation to call it at the start of work. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives like search_decisions, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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