adr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the ADR is 'stored as a structured capture' and 'can be recalled by any agent', which is useful persistence and recall behavior. However, it omits details like what happens on duplicate titles, whether it appends or overwrites, and any return value or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and its persistence/recall behavior, which is reasonably complete for a recording tool given the schema covers parameters. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain the expected return value or potential error outcomes, leaving a small gap.

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% with each parameter already described. The tool description does not mention any parameters specifically, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Hence, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Record an Architecture Decision Record (ADR)' using a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the scope ('technical decision that future agents should know about') which distinguishes it from generic capture or recall tools.

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 says 'Use this tool when you make a technical decision that future agents should know about', which provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools like capture, despite implying a structured format.

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