timps_adr_writer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions producing a Markdown file but does not clarify whether the file is saved, returned as text, or if any side effects occur. There is no mention of permissions, input/output handling details, or potential destructive actions, leaving the behavior ambiguous.

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, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key features. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for immediate understanding.

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 description covers the core function (turning a decision into an ADR) and its main components, but it lacks details about the output mechanism (e.g., does it save a file or return text?) and any potential edge cases. This leaves some ambiguity for a user assessing the tool's full behavior.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('request' and 'language') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to these parameters beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional clarity.

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's function: converting a technical decision into a Michael Nygard-style Architecture Decision Record, listing the included sections (context, options matrix, decision, consequences) and the output format (rendered Markdown file). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely have different purposes.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to related tools. Users are left to infer when an ADR is needed, but no explicit instruction is given.

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