decision_listList project decision proposals with approval status, evidence, and review timestamps. Filter by status or limit to track decision progress.
列出项目决策提案及其审批状态、证据和复核时间。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond those annotations by specifying the content of the returned list: approval status, evidence, and review time. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('列出') and resource, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the core purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema, so a long description is not necessary. The description covers the core purpose and return content, but misses operational essentials: it does not state that project_id is required, nor how limit and status affect results. An agent would need to consult the schema to call it correctly, making the description adequate but incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify any of the three parameters. It mentions 'status' only as an output field, not as a filter parameter; project_id and limit are entirely unaddressed. The agent receives no assistance in understanding parameter meanings beyond raw schema constraints.
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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) and identifies the resource '项目决策提案' (project decision proposals), while also naming the included fields: approval status, evidence, and review time. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like decision_create and decision_review, which perform different actions on the same domain.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like a valid project_id, nor does it contrast with sibling tools such as decision_create or decision_review. Usage must be inferred from the name and schema, so explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.