Read ADR Option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return the current content" implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about error behavior for a missing option, the id-vs-full_title resolution, or whether previous versions are retrievable despite the word "current."

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 sentence is appropriately front-loaded, but the parenthetical "(plan §5)" is an internal document reference that costs tokens without helping an agent invoke the tool.

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 covers return values, so that gap is excused. What remains missing is significant for a two-required-parameter tool with no annotations: the relationship between id and full_title, the failure mode when the option is absent, and any routing guidance to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0% for two required parameters. The description mentions full_title only by restating the parameter name ("named full_title") and never explains the required `id` at all, so it compensates for only half the gap and adds almost no semantic meaning.

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?

"Return the current content of the option" gives a clear verb (read/return) and resource (option content), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the numerous siblings (option_list, option_update, option_delete), and the phrase "named full_title" sits awkwardly against the schema, which also requires an unexplained `id`.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. There is no hint that option_list should be used to discover options or that option_update is the counterpart, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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