team_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavior when the decisions file is missing, whether the log is truncated, or how ordering/recency works, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core resource is named first and the purpose follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description establishes the source and purpose. But for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any explanation of limit or of missing-file behavior leaves it only minimally complete.

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% for both parameters, and the description never mentions workspace_path or limit. The relative path hint implies workspace_path scopes the lookup, but limit (default 8) is completely unexplained — it presumably caps how many decisions are returned, but the agent must guess.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the project decision log at .codex-gravity/decisions.md), plus what it contains (accepted decisions given to later sessions). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like team_transcript or team_status, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'the accepted decisions later sessions are given as context' implies when the tool is useful (loading prior project context), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many team_* and codex_* siblings.

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