adr_list

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 only says 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose what is returned (file names, paths, contents), whether subdirectories are included, or any formatting/pagination. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify what the output looks like, how the 'dir' parameter affects results, or how this tool differs from siblings in terms of use cases. An agent would need to inspect other sources to call 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 coverage is 100% — the 'dir' parameter has a description ('ADR directory'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List ADR files.' uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('ADR files'). It is distinct from siblings adr_status (which likely reports status) and adr_new (which creates new ADRs), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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 on when to use this tool versus adr_status or adr_new. The description doesn't state typical scenarios (e.g., 'use this to see all existing ADRs' or 'for status, use adr_status'). An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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