adr_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a safe read operation by saying 'list', but lacks details on pagination, performance, or what 'all ADRs' means in terms of scope (e.g., current project?).

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be expanded to cover missing parameters without becoming verbose.

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?

With an output schema present, return value documentation is not needed, but the description omits important context: no sibling differentiation, no parameter explanation for one param, and no usage guidance. This makes the tool underspecified for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It correctly identifies status and type as filters, but the 'project_path' parameter is not mentioned, leaving ambiguity about its role.

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 lists all ADRs with optional filtering by status and type, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like adr_search or adr_overview.

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 such as adr_search (for complex queries) or adr_overview (for summaries). The description only mentions filtering but not use cases.

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