List ADR Options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses document ordering, which is useful, but does not say whether this is read-only, what happens if the id is missing, or what the caller should expect beyond the output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need less exposition. However, for a tool requiring an ADR id with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description should at least identify the target ADR and its relationship to option_read and list_adr.

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, id, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The description leaves unclear which ADR document the id identifies or how the id is used.

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 that it returns the full titles of every 'Option N: ...' sub-section in document order. The listing verb is implied by the tool name and the phrasing, but the description never explicitly says these are ADR options or names the ADR being queried.

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 option_list versus sibling tools such as option_read, list_adr, get_adr, or option_create. The listing intent is implied, but no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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