adr_get_audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns 'the full timeline of status transitions with user, timestamp and optional note,' which clearly explains the output. As a read operation, this is sufficient and does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: first states the action, second describes the return value, third provides usage guidance. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, return value, and usage context completely. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or when to use it.

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?

The only parameter 'adrId' has schema description 'Internal ADR id (not the display number).' This adds important context beyond the schema by clarifying what the ID represents, indicating it is not a public display number. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful additional information.

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 'Get the audit log (status change history) for an ADR.' It specifies the resource (ADR) and the exact data returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like adr_get (which likely returns the ADR itself) and adr_update_status (which changes status).

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 says 'Use this to understand why a decision moved from proposed → accepted or was later deprecated/superseded.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, the examples provide sufficient guidance and imply its differentiation from other tools.

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