adr_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a link is added, with no information about permissions, reversibility, duplicate prevention, or side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., ADRs must exist), behavior on linking already linked ADRs, and the return format (despite an output schema existing). This incomplete context may hinder correct agent invocation.

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 three parameters (from_number, to_number, project_path) with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description adds zero semantic value beyond the parameter names; it does not explain what the numbers represent, what project_path is for, or any 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?

The description 'Add a bidirectional related link between two ADRs' uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('bidirectional related link') and clearly identifies the objects (two ADRs). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as adr_create (creates new ADR) and adr_update (updates 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?

The description implies usage for linking two ADRs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adr_dependencies (which might handle dependency tracking). No when-not-to-use or alternative information is given.

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