list_adrs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope (all ADRs in .context/decisions/) and the lightweight nature (does not load full content), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention behavior like whether it follows symlinks, how it handles missing directories, or whether it sorts by number, though these are minor for a listing tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The only minor gap is not describing error behavior (e.g., missing directory), but that's not essential for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about project_path beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every ADR in .context/decisions/'), and the output format ('lightweight table (number, title, status, filename)'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_adr and read_adr_section by saying it lists metadata rather than loading full content.

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 says to use this tool before read_adr/read_adr_section to find which ADR is needed, without loading full ADR content. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternatives, making the selection decision unambiguous.

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