dashclaw_decisions_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a query operation (read-only) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific.

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 query tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filters but omits details like default limit, pagination, or output format. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 40% (only limit and since have descriptions). The description adds context by listing filter dimensions (agent, action type, decision, time window), which maps to parameters but does not explain formats or enum values. It partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 queries the guardrail decisions ledger for recent governed actions, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'dashclaw_recent_decisions', which appears similarly named.

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 a usage hint ('Use for in-session retrospection') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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