decision_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that bodies, rationale, alternatives, and consequences are omitted, and that this is a read-oriented index tool. This is meaningful behavioral transparency for a list 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 front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose, the key behavioral limitation, and the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 covers the core behavior and alternatives well, but with no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the agent is left guessing about output shape and the effect of includeStructured. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain locale or includeStructured. The phrase 'project-scoped' hints at projectRoot, but the boolean parameter includeStructured is left entirely ambiguous, so the agent receives little guidance for correct invocation.

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 identifies the resource as the 'compact project-scoped Decision index.' It also distinguishes itself from decision_open and entity_open by explicitly stating what is omitted and how to get full records.

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 names alternatives and the condition for choosing them: 'use decision_open or entity_open(type=decision) for one record.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to.

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