Hedgehog

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It discloses internal logic ('Builds alternatives from challenged branches') and output action ('renders the ADR template'), but lacks critical safety information: whether this creates/persists records, modifies existing state, or returns ephemeral content. Output schema exists but description doesn't hint at return format.

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?

Well-structured with clear separation: purpose statement, behavioral details, then parameter dictionary. Docstring-style Args section is readable. No redundant sentences, though 'Args:' section header is slightly informal for MCP 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?

Given 4 required parameters and complex workflow (16 sibling spike tools), description adequately covers core function and parameters. However, lacks workflow context necessary for this tool type: doesn't indicate whether this creates a draft for review (vs final ADR) or relationship to spike_approve_adr. Output schema exists, so return documentation isn't required in description.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args block provides clear semantic mapping: 'Spike name' distinguishes from 'ADR title', 'Context/background' and 'The decision being documented' clarify purpose. Compensates adequately for schema gaps, though doesn't specify formats or constraints.

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?

States specific action (Generate) and resource (Architecture Decision Record) with clear scope (from spike artifacts). Mentions 'challenged branches' which implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like spike_synthesize, though it could explicitly clarify when to prefer this over spike_approve_adr.

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?

Only implies prerequisites through 'from spike artifacts' phrasing, suggesting spike data must exist first. No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like spike_synthesize or spike_approve_adr despite complex sibling ecosystem.

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