List Decisions

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

The description conveys the core behavior: enumerating decisions and optionally filtering by tags. With no annotations, it does not add detail about pagination, ordering, project-required semantics, or response shape, though 'list' implies a read-only 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 short sentences front-load the main operation and add a useful filtering tip. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description is minimally adequate and the schema covers all parameters. However, key operational details are missing: whether project is required, how multiple tags work, and what the returned decision objects contain, especially since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds a general mention of tag filtering but does not clarify parameter relationships, multi-tag syntax, or behavior when project or limit are omitted.

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 identifies the action ('List decisions'), the resource ('decisions'), and the scoping context ('for a project'). It is unambiguous next to sibling list_projects and list_tasks, though it does not explicitly contrast with log_decision or search tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as query, search_notes, or get_project_summary. The only implication is 'when you need decisions,' with no exclusions or alternative-based routing.

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