Architectural decision log

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

Annotations are present and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them: it explains that store writes a row, list and search are read-only, decisions outrank memories and survive pruning longer. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear header and bullet-pointed actions, but it is slightly verbose. However, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core concept.

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 the multi-action complexity and 9 parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: action selection, parameter requirements per action, and behavioral notes. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described.

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%, and the description adds extra meaning with examples (e.g., 'Use Postgres over MySQL'), clarification of parameter scoping (e.g., 'required for store', 'ignored otherwise'), and default values with rationale (importance default 0.7 since decisions outrank typical facts).

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 the tool is a 'Multi-action ADR log' and lists three specific actions (store, list, search) with brief explanations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that decisions outrank free-form memories and pointing to pitfalls_log for recurring problems.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use each action (e.g., 'record a new decision' for store, 'list recent decisions' for list) and when not to use ('Use pitfalls_log for recurring problems'). Also provides context on parameter requirements per action.

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