decision_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return contents and explicitly states a behavioral boundary ('never projects it onto Canvas'). The verb 'Open' implies a read-like operation, but the description does not explicitly guarantee no side effects or mention auth/permission requirements, so it is not a perfect disclosure.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then packs the return fields and a key behavioral caveat into a compact, readable structure.

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?

Despite having no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and five parameters, the description remains brief. It gives the return field names but omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, error behavior, and return structure details, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate, but it barely does. Terms like 'project-scoped' and 'compact History' loosely hint at projectRoot and historyLimit, but nothing explains locale, includeStructured, or the exact meaning and interaction of the parameters.

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 ('Open') and a clear resource ('one project-scoped Decision'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings such as decision_list by focusing on a single Decision and returning a defined set of fields. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need a single Decision's rationale, alternatives, consequences, scope, supersession, and history. It also names a boundary ('never projects it onto Canvas'), which helps the agent avoid expecting Canvas behavior, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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