Autonomous systems are soon to be ubiquitous, spanning manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, entertainment, and other industries. Most of these systems are developed with modular sub-components for decision-making, planning, and control that may be hand-engineered or learning-based. While these approaches perform well under the situations they were specifically designed for, they can perform especially poorly in out-of-distribution scenarios that will undoubtedly arise at test-time. The rise of foundation models trained on multiple tasks with impressively large datasets has led researchers to believe that these models may provide "common sense" reasoning that existing planners are missing, bridging the gap between algorithm development and deployment. While researchers have shown promising results in deploying foundation models to decision-making tasks, these models are known to hallucinate and generate decisions that may sound reasonable, but are in fact poor. We argue there is a need to step back and simultaneously design systems that can quantify the certainty of a model's decision, and detect when it may be hallucinating. In this work, we discuss the current use cases of foundation models for decision-making tasks, provide a general definition for hallucinations with examples, discuss existing approaches to hallucination detection and mitigation with a focus on decision problems, present guidelines, and explore areas for further research in this exciting field.