list_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description repeats those traits. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: 'not separately rate-limited,' default ordering, outcome_delta semantics, and the exact response fields including pagination metadata and accuracy_summary. Given the strong annotation coverage, the extra rate-limit and response-shape context is valuable.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and ordering, filter and alternative tool, response formula, safety and rate-limit context, and return fields. It front-loads the core purpose before layering details, with no filler or redundancy beyond a minor restatement of the annotations.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is strong: it names expected fields, pagination metadata, filtering behavior, ordering, and outcome semantics. It is slightly incomplete around the limit/page_size duplication and does not describe empty-result behavior, but nothing an agent needs to safely invoke the tool is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description adds modest semantics around with_outcome_only and outcome_delta, but it does not materially clarify the relationship between limit and page_size, which is the main potential source of confusion. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the Decision Memory audit trail — all logged decisions, most recent first.' It clearly defines scope (all logged decisions) and ordering, and is distinguishable from the sibling get_decision, which the description explicitly routes to for single-record lookups. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 concrete usage guidance: use with_outcome_only=true to filter to decisions with recorded outcomes, and use get_decision when retrieving one record by id. It does not enumerate exclusions or distinguish from the similarly named get_audit_logs sibling, but it provides enough context to make the main routing decision.

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