adr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the ADR is 'stored as a structured capture and can be recalled by any agent working on the same project,' which gives persistence and visibility. However, it omits other behavioral nuances like return values, immutability, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 compact—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and trigger, the second explains the storage and recall behavior. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a write tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to record, when to use it, and what happens to the record. The schema handles parameter specifics, so the description does not need to repeat them. It might be slightly stronger if it mentioned return behavior, but overall it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all 11 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Record' and a well-defined resource 'Architecture Decision Record (ADR)', clearly distinguishing it from generic capture tools. It also states the scope ('technical decision that future agents should know about'), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you make a technical decision that future agents should know about.' This provides a clear trigger condition, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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