Get a compact project-scoped decision index. Use it to survey decisions, then open specific records for full details.
Read the compact project-scoped Decision index. Bodies, rationale, alternatives, and consequences are omitted; use decision_open or entity_open(type=decision) for one record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that this is a compact index and that bodies, rationale, alternatives, and consequences are intentionally omitted. It also names the tools that do include those details. It does not discuss side effects, but 'Read' strongly signals a non-mutating 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?
Two sentences, with the core action and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds useful information: scoping, omission details, and routing to alternatives.
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 description clearly explains what the tool returns and what it does not, and it directs users to the right alternative for full records. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and entirely undocumented parameters, the definition lacks enough detail about how includeStructured, locale, and taskContextId affect the result.
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 provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain locale, projectRoot, taskContextId, or includeStructured. The phrase 'project-scoped' loosely hints at projectRoot but is far from enough for an agent to select and populate parameters correctly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('compact project-scoped Decision index'), then explicitly states what is omitted and points to alternatives for one record. This clearly distinguishes the tool from decision_open and entity_open.
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 explicitly says to use decision_open or entity_open(type=decision) when full decision records are needed, which gives both a when-to-use and when-not-to-use signal. This is clear routing guidance with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.