option_listLists all current 'Option N: ...' sub-section titles in document order for a given ID, so you can review the decision options in a specification.
Full titles of every current 'Option N: ...' sub-section, in document order (plan §5).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond return shape. It does not state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, does not mention auth or scoping needs, and does not say what happens for an ADR with no options.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no padding. The only structural weakness is that it is a fragment rather than a full statement, but it wastes no words.
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 explaining the returned titles is largely redundant, and the space is instead spent on that rather than on the undocumented 'id' parameter or any usage context. For an agent to call this correctly it still needs to guess what to pass as 'id'.
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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or clarifies whether it is an ADR id, file path, or document identifier. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.
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 names the exact resource it returns — the 'Option N: ...' sub-section titles of an ADR, in document order — which is specific enough to distinguish it from option_read or list_adr in substance. However it is a bare noun phrase with no explicit verb and never contrasts itself with the closely-named option_* siblings.
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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is a lightweight index versus option_read for full option content, and nothing states when listing options is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.