openmausbot_list_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds nothing about behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter (which enforces maximum 500). Since annotations cover the safety and mutation profile, the description doesn't need to repeat that, but it also doesn't add any extra behavioral detail like pagination or ordering. A 4 is given because annotations provide solid coverage and the description is not contradictory.

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 short sentence, which is efficient. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it is somewhat terse and could benefit from a brief clarification of what 'decisions' refers to. Still, it earns a 4 for being concise and not padded with filler.

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: one optional parameter, read-only, idempotent, and no nested objects. An output schema exists, which likely describes the return format, so the description doesn't need to explain that. For a list operation with a well-documented schema and annotations, this is minimally viable. However, the ambiguity of 'decisions' is a gap – an agent might need to know what decisions are (e.g., a decision log, a bot's past choices) to use it correctly. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 documents the 'limit' parameter with a clear description ('Number of decisions to return') and default/min/max values. The description mentions 'recent decisions' but doesn't explain how the limit interacts with recency (e.g., are they sorted by date descending? Does a higher limit include older decisions?). With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond implying a time-based filter.

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 states the verb 'list' and the resource 'decisions', but it is quite minimal and doesn't specify what 'decisions' means in this context (e.g., decisions made by a bot, user decisions, etc.). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_bots or list_routines, though the resource name is unique enough. The title and annotations add a bit more context, but the description itself is vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of others. There is no mention of alternatives or typical scenarios. The only hint is the resource name, which distinguishes it from other list tools, but no explicit exclusions or conditions are given. An agent would have to infer usage from the resource name alone.

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