arai_recent_decisions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals behavior: returns tool, decision, matched rules, source file. It explains session_id behavior (scope to session) and since default (24h). Good transparency for a read-like operation.

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?

Three sentences, each non-redundant. First sentence states action and scope, second gives usage context, third details return fields. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers return fields comprehensively. With three optional parameters, it explains all usage scenarios. The tool is straightforward, and the description fully equips an agent to use it correctly.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds context: explains session_id's role in scoping, since's default time window, and limit's default and max. This goes beyond the schema, enriching parameter understanding.

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 looks up recent guardrail decisions, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arai_add_guard, arai_check_action, and arai_list_guards by focusing on retrieving emitted decisions, not adding or checking rules.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you've just been denied or warned and want to check whether you've hit the same rule before.' This provides a clear use case, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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