adr_export

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

Without annotations, the description should provide behavioral details, but it only states the action. It does not mention if it overwrites existing files, whether network access is required, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema partially compensates but does not cover behavioral traits.

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 very concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it omits necessary details, making it somewhat under-specified. 'Appropriately sized' for a simple tool but missing parameter guidance.

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 tool has two optional parameters and a non-trivial export operation, the description is incomplete. It does not address parameter behavior or edge cases. The output schema helps with return values but does not complete the context.

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 input schema has two optional parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose of 'output_dir' or 'project_path', nor their default behavior (null). An agent would need to guess what these parameters control.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('all ADRs') and the output format ('HTML'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like adr_create, adr_read, etc.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say if this is for full documentation generation or partial export.

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