read_adr_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that it returns only title and status, not full content, and mentions behavior for legacy format. However, it doesn't disclose error cases, returns for missing ADRs, or whether it modifies anything. As a read-only operation, it's fairly clear, but more detail on responses would help.

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 waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and the legacy format note is a useful extra. Highly concise and effective.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and clear schema. The description explains the lightweight nature and handles edge case of legacy format. Lacks explicit return format, but no output schema exists, and the description's clarity compensates. Complete enough for an agent to call 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 covers both parameters thoroughly (project_path and number_or_filename formats). Description doesn't add extra semantics beyond schema. With 100% coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra value added by description.

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 states the tool reads an ADR's title and parsed Status without loading full content, distinguishing it from read_adr which loads full content. It also mentions handling legacy inline format, adding specificity. This differentiates it from sibling tools like read_adr and list_adrs.

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 implies use when you need only title and status, not full content, but does not explicitly say when to use read_adr instead. It could be clearer about avoiding this tool when full content is needed, but the context is reasonably clear.

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