Open an architecture decision to access its rationale, alternatives, consequences, scope, supersession, and history.
Open one architecture Decision. Returns its rationale, alternatives, consequences, scope, supersession, and compact History.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| locale | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| historyLimit | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is returned (a compact history) but does not disclose potential side effects, read-only nature, error conditions, or any special behavior such as authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 sentence that is efficient and front-loads the core action ('Open one architecture Decision') before listing the return contents. It is not verbose profile, but it does pack the key purpose into a compact form. It loses a point because the list of return items is a bit of a catalog, but overall it is well-structured.
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 has six parameters, but only a required id is self-evident. The description explains the return type but not the meaning of `historyLimit`, `includeStructured`, `taskContextId`, or `locale`. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly with optional parameters. It is minimally viable but not 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%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters galaxy. However, the description only clarifies the return content, not the parameters like `historyLimit`, `includeStructured`, or `locale`. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, which already has types and, for some, clear names. Given the 0% coverage, the description does not do enough to explain the parameters' purpose, so a 3 is generous but reflects the basic clarity of `id` as the required identifier.
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 opens a single architecture Decision and lists the specific content returned (rationale, alternatives, consequences, scope, supersession, history). This is a clear verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling `decision_list` by specifying the singular open action, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling.
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 implies the tool is for viewing a single decision, but it does not explicitly say when to use it vs `decision_list` or other tools. The context of 'Open one architecture Decision' suggests a point-in-time read, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over listing or searching. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.