veto_adr

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by stating it writes a file conditionally and returns content. Annotations already mark non-read-only and non-destructive; description clarifies the write action is optional and safe.

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?

Two sentences: first defines core purpose, second adds conditional behavior and return value. No filler, highly efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description clarifies return is markdown content. For a conversion tool with 7 well-described params, this is sufficient. Could mention that it generates a file path slug from task.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states it converts a veto_council_debate result into a MADR-format ADR, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like veto_council_debate by focusing on output generation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions conditional file writing but doesn't advise on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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