mcp-adr-analysis-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.6.14
Disambiguation2/5
With 75 tools covering diverse areas, many tools overlap conceptually (e.g., multiple ADR generation and validation tools). The agent would struggle to distinguish between similar tools like analyze_gaps, get_gaps, validate_adr, validate_all_adrs, etc., despite descriptive text.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tools use snake_case but vary in pattern: some are verb_noun (list_directory), others are adjective_noun (deployment_readiness) or compound verbs (bootstrap_validation_loop). The lack of a strict, predictable naming convention hinders quick identification.
Tool Count1/5
75 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on ADR analysis. It includes general-purpose tools (file I/O, git, cloud management) that bloat the surface and dilute the server's purpose, causing inefficiency.
Completeness3/5
While the server covers many ADR lifecycle stages (creation, validation, gap analysis, sync), it lacks basic CRUD operations like updating ADR content or deleting ADRs. The addition of unrelated tools suggests incomplete coverage of the stated domain.
Average 3.2/5 across 75 of 75 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 180 of 189 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 309 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a vague description, behavioral traits are absent. The tool's side effects (e.g., file modifications), authorization needs, or operational constraints are undisclosed, requiring the agent to infer from parameter names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but at the expense of clarity. It lacks front-loaded specificity and does not earn its place, as it provides minimal actionable information for an 8-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It omits return behavior, side effects, and how the tool processes multiple analysis types, leaving major gaps for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as how parameters interact (e.g., relationship between analysisType and researchPath). Fails to enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Incorporate research findings into architectural decisions' is vague and lacks specificity. It does not state the primary action (e.g., reading research files and updating ADRs) or differentiate from sibling tools like perform_research or generate_adr_from_decision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'research-driven approach' but does not explain key behaviors: whether actions are executed directly, if confirmation is needed, or what side effects occur. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose these traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence (8 words), which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity, as it does not provide enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's purpose fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not explain critical aspects like return value, relation to ADR files, or how 'researchFirst' works. The lack of output schema makes completeness even more necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'Action to perform' for action). The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, 'action' values are undocumented, and 'adrDirectory' relates to architecture decisions but this is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'LLM-managed cloud provider operations' which indicates the general domain but lacks specificity about what operations (e.g., provisioning, configuration). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'llm_database_management' or 'llm_web_search' clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'research-driven approach', suggesting it may perform external lookups or analysis, but does not state whether operations are destructive, require permissions, or have side effects. The impact on the database or project files is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and critical information. It is not front-loaded with the most important details, and there is no hierarchy of information. It fits in a short summary but sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a complex tool. It omits how actions are specified, what the research step entails, how parameters interact, and what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds the context of 'research-driven approach' but does not elaborate on parameters like 'action', 'parameters', or 'llmInstructions' beyond what the schema already provides. The agent gains minimal additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'LLM-managed database operations with research-driven approach' specifies the domain (database) and the approach (research-driven), but the verb 'operations' is vague and does not clearly indicate the specific actions (e.g., query, update, schema management). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'llm_cloud_management' which also uses LLM management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or whether it reads files (e.g., todoPath, adrDirectory). Minimal transparency for a tool that likely accesses the filesystem.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and fails to convey the tool's workflow or high-level purpose beyond the title. Additional context would improve usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to use outcome rules, or the relationship between inputs, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool’s description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does not repeat schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (analyze deployment progress and verify completion) and mentions outcome rules, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like analyze_environment. However, it lacks explicit distinction from other analysis tools, preventing a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention excluded scenarios, prerequisites, or recommendations, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose side effects, dependencies, or whether the tool modifies files; only states the high-level action without behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise (one sentence) but under-specifies the tool's functionality; more detail is needed for a tool with 9 complex parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested parameters, no output schema) and sibling context, the description fails to provide complete context about integration, workflow, or expected outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema; baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it generates research questions and a tracking system, but does not distinguish from siblings like perform_research or create_research_template, lacking specificity about what 'context-aware' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, which is a gap given the many related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Configure content masking for all MCP outputs' without explaining effects like persistence, scope, or what 'get' returns. This is insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and related sibling tools, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the behavior of get/set/reset actions, what 'all MCP outputs' entails, or how it integrates with other masking tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so the description does not need to add much, and it doesn't. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Configure content masking for all MCP outputs' clearly states the verb 'configure' and resource 'content masking for all MCP outputs'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_basic_content_masking' or 'configure_custom_patterns', lacking specificity on scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply_basic_content_masking' for simpler enable/disable or 'configure_custom_patterns' for pattern-specific masking. The description gives no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose side effects. Only mentions creation; no info on overwriting, permission needs, or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Could include more details but is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter relationships, return behavior, or typical usage contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'rule set' with formats specified. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_rules', which could overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'generate_rules' or 'validate_rules'. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'discover and catalog' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, whether it modifies files or state, or what 'catalog' means in terms of side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative without losing brevity (e.g., mentioning that it returns a list of ADR paths).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., file paths, count). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what 'catalog' produces. Also lacks mention of whether it scans recursively or only the specified directory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description does not add value beyond the schema: it names the tool's action but does not explain how parameters like includeContent affect behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool discovers and catalogs existing ADRs in the project, specifying the verb (discover/catalog) and resource (existing ADRs). It differentiates from siblings like review_existing_adrs (which likely reviews content) and generate_adr_from_decision. However, 'catalog' is slightly ambiguous—could mean list or store.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like review_existing_adrs, validate_adr, or read_file. Given many ADR-related sibling tools, explicit context for selection is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions retrieving and expanding content without disclosing any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, requires authentication, modifies state, or has rate limits. Critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with a 'Phase 3:' prefix, making it efficient. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing informative content for brevity. It earns a 4 for being concise, though not maximally helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and the complexity of the tool (3 parameters, potential side effects), the description fails to explain what the expanded content looks like, whether it modifies state, or how it integrates with other tools like 'memory_loading'. It is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify parameter interactions or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves and expands stored content using an expandable ID from a tiered response. The verb 'retrieve and expand' and the specific resource are identified, but it lacks explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools like 'expand_analysis_section' or 'memory_loading'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only labels the tool as 'Phase 3', implying a sequential process but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites files, requires permissions, or if it is safe. The tool is a generator, but the description lacks these details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences: one for the core purpose and one for a helpful tip. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, how the decision data is used, or any behavioral aspects. More context is needed for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, and the parameters are well-described in the schema itself. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles most of the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate a complete ADR from decision data,' which is a specific verb+resource. It helps distinguish from siblings like generate_adr_bootstrap or generate_adrs_from_prd, though it could explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a tip to reference a context file but does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives like generate_adr_bootstrap, nor state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'generate masking instructions' without explaining whether it modifies content, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. The behavioral impact is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence without unnecessary words. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to aid comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input (array of sensitive items with positions and severities) and the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what 'masking instructions' means and how they are returned. It fails to provide essential context for using the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how detectedItems are used or how maskingStrategy affects output. This meets baseline expectations but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and resource 'masking instructions' for detected sensitive content. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like 'apply_basic_content_masking' or 'validate_content_masking', which could cause confusion on which tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The description provides no context about the tool's role in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' and 'snapshot', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or require any authentication. It fails to describe side effects or return behavior beyond being a snapshot.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, earning its place without fluff. The 'Phase 3:' prefix is somewhat ambiguous but does not severely impact brevity. It is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still lacks detail about what the snapshot contains (e.g., messages, metadata) and how it differs from query_conversation_history. This insufficiency hinders an agent from fully understanding the tool's utility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter recentTurnCount, which already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current conversation context snapshot', indicating it retrieves a snapshot of the conversation. The phrase 'for resumption or analysis' clarifies its use case. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like query_conversation_history, though 'conversation' narrows it compared to other get_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Phase 3' which hints at a workflow but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_conversation_history or other get_* tools. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get statistics' but does not specify what kind (counts, sizes, etc.), whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The agent has no insight into return format or potential impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but wastes space on 'Phase 3' which is not useful. It could be more concise by removing that prefix while adding more informative content. Overall, it is below average for an effective description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no parameters, the description should explain what statistics are returned. It fails to provide that, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. It is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context that statistics are 'about stored conversation memory', which provides some semantics beyond the empty schema. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about stored conversation memory', clearly indicating what the tool does. However, the preface 'Phase 3' is ambiguous and does not aid in understanding. Among siblings, 'get_conversation_snapshot' is similar but the description does not differentiate, though the name implies stats vs snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_conversation_snapshot' or 'query_conversation_history'. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'list contents' without details on recursion, hidden files, sorting, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and no fluff. However, it may be overly brief for the complexity of the tool, but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and the description does not mention what the output contains (e.g., list of strings, objects). For a listing tool, this information is critical for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'path' has a schema description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (contents of a directory). It is specific enough for a basic tool, though it does not differentiate from siblings like read_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as read_directory or search_codebase. There are no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to detail side effects, authorization needs, state changes, or limitations. The 'operation' parameter implies different behaviors but the description does not explain them beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a dash-separated list, which is concise and front-loaded with key features. It contains no extraneous information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (26 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, operation-specific behavior, or how parameters interact. The schema covers parameter details, but the description should provide more operational context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond listing high-level capabilities. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description lists specific capabilities (phase-based project management, team resource allocation, etc.), giving a clear overview of the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that are more narrow (e.g., analyze_adr_timeline, generate_adrs_from_prd). However, it lacks a single concise verb+resource pair and could be more focused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the AI agent to infer usage context from sibling tool names. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it lists actions like load_adrs and create_snapshot, it does not clarify side effects, whether queries are read-only, or any authorization or rate-limiting considerations. This leaves agents unaware of potential write operations and safety implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and capabilities. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff, achieving high efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, enums, no output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to explain return formats, pagination behavior, or how results are structured, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly interpret outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable but provides no extra value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to load ADRs, query entities, and manage memory entities/relationships. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_knowledge_graph or expand_memory by being a central multi-action tool, but could be more explicit about when to use it over siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like expand_memory or get_knowledge_graph. The description does not include when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions, which is a significant gap for a tool with many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose side effects, destructive actions, or auth requirements. It merely lists operations without behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, but it is somewhat long. Slightly below excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (18 params, 7 operations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain when to use each operation or what the output includes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level overview.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's role as central coordination for project health scoring and lists multiple operations, distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools. However, it lacks a specific action verb for the overall purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling tools. The description only lists operations without context on typical scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'generate structured tool execution plans', omitting that the tool can also execute plans (executionMode), requires a list of available tools, or returns a plan. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or dependencies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the main purpose. It is front-loaded with the key phrase 'AI-powered dynamic tool sequencing'. However, it could be improved by adding a second sentence summarizing usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a complex orchestrator with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what the tool returns (execution plan), the meaning of modes (plan_only vs plan_and_execute), or the role of availableTools. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain parameter interplay or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's core function: analyzing user requests and generating tool execution plans. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (specific analyzers and utilities) by being an orchestrator, though the term 'AI-powered dynamic tool sequencing' is somewhat buzzwordy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is intended for multi-step workflows, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'mcp_planning' or 'analyze_*' tools. The agent receives no context to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool checks code implementation via ADR Aggregator but does not describe side effects, permissions, or what 'compliance' entails. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences conveying purpose and a key requirement. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error cases, or the behavior for different validation types, leaving the agent underinformed for a validation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates ADR compliance against implementation, checking that code implements documented decisions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'validate_adr' and 'validate_all_adrs' beyond mentioning the 'ADR Aggregator'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a Pro+ tier requirement but lacks explicit context for selecting this tool over similar validation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output it produces (e.g., boolean, error messages), or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon validation (e.g., success/failure indication), nor does it provide any context about the expected behavior or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'content masking'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'apply_basic_content_masking' and 'generate_content_masking' by indicating a validation step. However, it does not specify what 'correctly' means or the criteria for validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'validate_adr' or other validation tools. The description lacks cues about the appropriate context or prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, or any side effects. For a validation tool, it should assert non-destructiveness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 6 words, perfectly concise. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, report formats, or how to use fileContent vs filePath. The agent is likely underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Rules to validate against', 'Name of file'). No extra semantics are added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (validate) and the resource (code against architectural rules). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like validate_adr or validate_content_masking, though it could be more precise about the nature of validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other validators (validate_adr, validate_all_adrs, etc.), but the description does not differentiate contexts or give any usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'write' but does not clarify whether it overwrites, appends, or creates files, nor does it mention permissions, size limits, or encoding. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (5 words) with no wasted text. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical behavioral hints without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about file behavior (overwrite, creation), but it does not. The agent lacks essential information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write content to a file' clearly states the action (write) and resource (file), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file. However, it lacks specificity about the operation (e.g., overwrite, append, create) which would make it more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. This omission leaves the agent uncertain about context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Only states 'Configure', but does not specify if it creates, updates, or deletes patterns, nor any side effects, permissions, or state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with verb, but lacks substance. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return behavior, configuration effects, or required permissions. A configuration tool requires richer context than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so schema already clarifies parameters. Description adds minimal value by hinting at 'custom sensitive patterns' but does not specify format or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Configure'), resource ('custom sensitive patterns'), and scope ('for a project'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'configure_output_masking' or 'apply_basic_content_masking'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'configure_output_masking' or 'generate_content_masking'. Lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions optional memory integration but does not disclose side effects like state changes, privacy implications, or what the AI detection entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words. Could benefit from more detail but is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet description omits what the tool returns (e.g., report or score) and does not explain complex features like knowledge enhancement or memory integration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only vaguely referencing 'AI-powered detection' and 'memory integration' which map to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'analyze' and resource 'content for sensitive information', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_basic_content_masking' that handle masking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'apply_basic_content_masking' or 'configure_custom_patterns'), nor any prerequisites or context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it provides 'optimization recommendations' and has optional 'memory integration', but does not clarify whether memory integration creates or modifies stored data, what the analysis process entails, or any side effects. The tool's behavior regarding environment snapshot tracking is underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose and key feature (memory integration). It avoids verbosity, though it could be improved with a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating purpose from optional features).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, including nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the analysis types differ, or how memory integration works in practice. The agent is left without essential context to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and schemas, such as clarifying the relationship between analysisType and other parameters or explaining the 'requirements' object structure. It does not compensate for the lack of nested object documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes environment context and provides optimization recommendations, with an optional memory integration feature. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_adr_timeline or analyze_deployment_progress, which focus on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools. It mentions optional memory integration but does not specify conditions for enabling it or alternatives for similar analyses. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like file creation side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the file already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly (e.g., default behavior, overwrite policy).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a research template file for documenting findings. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'perform_research' and 'generate_research_questions' which focus on actual research activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only describes the high-level purpose. It does not mention permissions, side effects, limitations, or whether it writes files (though a parameter hints at file generation). The description lacks sufficient behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the generated guidance looks like, how ADRs are used, or how to leverage the parameters. The description is too sparse for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's context, but it does frame the parameters within the overall task. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'deployment guidance and instructions' from ADRs with environment-specific configurations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_deployment_progress or get_development_guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Given the numerous sibling tools, explicit usage context would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects and output format. It only states the high-level purpose, omitting whether rules are written to files, returned, or if the operation is safe/unsafe. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. While efficient, it could include more detail without becoming verbose. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices comprehensiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters including complex ones like 'existingRules' and 'source', the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after generation, nor does it specify output structure. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it does not explain how parameters interact or recommend choices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'architectural rules' from specific sources (ADRs and code patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_rules' or 'create_rule_set'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'create_rule_set' or 'validate_rules'. The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'LLM-managed' and 'cross-platform support' but omits critical details like rate limits, result structure, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, one sentence with no fluff. However, it could be rearranged to front-load the core function more prominently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, use cases, or behavior beyond a vague search function, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, hitting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs an LLM-managed web search using Firecrawl for cross-platform support. The verb 'search' and resource 'web' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like search_codebase and search_tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many search-related siblings, it fails to provide context for selection or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists actions without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., data loss from 'clear'), idempotency, or authorization needs. Agents are left to infer the impact of each action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the core actions. Every word is functional, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of the difference between 'clear' and 'cleanup' and does not mention the 'invalidate' action. Behavioral context for what each action entails is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it lists three actions but misses 'invalidate', and provides no additional context for the 'key' parameter. No value added over schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it manages MCP resource cache with specific actions (clear, stats, cleanup), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it omits the 'invalidate' action from the enum, creating a slight inconsistency with the schema. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are cache-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description simply states what the tool does without any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. 'Search and retrieve' implies idempotency but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but includes 'Phase 3' which is extraneous and not explained. Still, it is front-loaded and short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is too brief. It omits expected details like pagination, ordering, or result behavior. A search tool should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond 'based on filters', which is already implied by the schema's filter properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search and retrieve conversation sessions based on filters', using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_conversation_snapshot' by focusing on filtering and retrieval of multiple sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_conversation_snapshot'. The 'Phase 3' label hints at a sequence but lacks context. No exclusions or when-not recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Read contents of a file', failing to disclose file encoding, size limits, binary handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at four words, but lacks structural front-loading or key details. It earns its place by being clear, though under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, error handling, or safety. It is incomplete for a file read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'path' and 'filePath' have descriptions). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Read contents of a file', which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'write_file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description implies a read-like validation but does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything, requires network access, or has rate limits. The absence of output schema further limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a helpful TIP. It is concise and front-loaded, though the TIP is slightly extraneous but not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide information on return format, behavior, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'validate', resource 'ADR', and method 'research-driven analysis'. Distinguishes from sibling 'validate_all_adrs' by focusing on a single ADR.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. The TIP suggests a consistency check but does not guide on when to choose this tool over others like 'validate_all_adrs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not explain how validation works, whether it is destructive, or what 'against infrastructure reality' entails. The parameter 'includeEnvironmentCheck' hints at live checks, but the description lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, directly states purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, but could benefit from more structure like bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the validation process, return format, or potential impacts (e.g., network calls). More context is needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema definitions; it does not elaborate on parameters or their usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function: validate all ADRs in a directory against infrastructure reality. It distinguishes from the sibling validate_adr by emphasizing 'all ADRs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_adr or other validation tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool applies masking as a fallback, but does not describe what masking entails, whether it modifies content in place or returns masked content, or any side effects. The schema provides parameter details, but overall behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the key purpose and usage context. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description lacks crucial details such as the return value or output format, and how the masking strategies affect the result. The schema covers parameters, but without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'apply basic content masking', so it meets the baseline expectation for tools with rich schema, providing no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it applies basic content masking and specifies it's a fallback when AI is not available. This gives a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'generate_content_masking' or 'configure_output_masking', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'fallback when AI is not available' provides context for when to use the tool, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. The implied usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other masking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does without mentioning side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., whether it modifies files, requires file structure, or has performance implications). This lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, which is extremely concise. It delivers the core purpose without any fluff, earning a top score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a complex input schema with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., a report, summary, pass/fail) or how to interpret results. This leaves the agent without enough context to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Compare') and resources (TODO.md progress, ADRs, environment) with a clear goal ('validate implementation status'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's unique role, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_adr or analyze_environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage scenario (comparing TODO progress with ADRs and environment for validation), but it does not specify when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses that the tool automatically sets up ADR infrastructure if missing and provides outcome-focused workflow, which adds value. However, it doesn't mention side effects, permissions required, or return behavior, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and two additional behaviors. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality but does not explain what 'architectural context' includes or how it is returned. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including the nested conversationContext. The tool description adds no additional information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'architectural context', targeting specific files or the entire project. It also mentions additional capabilities like setting up ADR infrastructure and providing workflow guidance, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as analyze_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_project_ecosystem or analyze_environment. It lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or output format. It only states what the tool does, not any behavioral characteristics. No contradictions since there are no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that effectively front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 params, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not cover return values or usage guidance. It states what the tool does but not enough context for complete agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (86%+), as all 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides comprehensive development guidance that translates architectural decisions and workflow recommendations into specific coding tasks, implementation patterns, and a development roadmap. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_architectural_context and get_workflow_guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, nor are any prerequisites or context conditions mentioned. The agent is left to infer the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or dependencies. For a guidance tool, it lacks information about internal operations or data usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 18 words, front-loading the core purpose. While efficient, it omits important details that could be included without making it verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context on how inputs affect output and what the guidance looks like. It does not explain the interaction of availableAssets and primaryConcerns or the meaning of different timeframe values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions including enums and examples. The tool description adds little semantic value beyond summarizing the goal and projectContext parameters, so baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides intelligent workflow guidance and tool recommendations based on goals and project context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_development_guidance by being more general, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when seeking guidance and recommendations, but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_architectural_context or get_development_guidance. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions side effects ('Writes CHANGELOG.md, creates GitHub Releases and Milestones') but does not explain when these occur, whether they are conditional on parameters, what permissions are needed (e.g., gh CLI auth), or potential destructive actions like overwriting files. The statement is vague and lacks critical behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the core functionality. The last sentence listing side effects is useful but could be more specific. Overall, it is concise and well-structured for a tool with many operations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the tool has 21 parameters and 8 operations. The description gives a high-level overview and mentions support for greenfield and brownfield projects, but it does not explain how the different operations work or how parameters modify behavior. For such a complex tool, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. It does not elaborate on how parameters interact or special considerations for any of the 21 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('track releases mapped to ADR decisions', 'generates changelogs', 'manages milestones', 'compares releases', 'assesses release readiness') and identifies key resources (CHANGELOG.md, GitHub Releases and Milestones). It clearly differentiates the tool from its many siblings by focusing on release tracking integrated with ADR decisions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It implies usage for release tracking but offers no guidance on selecting this tool over others, such as the many analysis or validation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'request confirmation' without explaining how confirmation is obtained, what happens on confirmation or rejection, or whether it blocks execution. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, such as whether it awaits user input, what the response will be, and how it integrates with the workflow. The current description is too brief.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. The schema already describes 'action' and 'details' sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool requests confirmation before applying research-based changes, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'apply_basic_content_masking' and 'incorporate_research' by highlighting the confirmation step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or reference to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description lacks critical behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), auth needs, rate limits, or return format beyond 'raw file matches'. The 'atomic' qualifier is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the provenance note. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, relevance score interpretation, parameter interactions, and behavioral context like whether the tool is expensive or has limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No additional context is given for how parameters interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches codebase files based on query patterns and returns raw file matches with relevance scores. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file and search_tools by focusing on codebase file searching with relevance scoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for searching codebase files but does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or alternative tools for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions advanced techniques like Knowledge Generation and Reflexion but does not explain their behavior, side effects, or whether the tool writes data. The learning and knowledge generation parameters hint at persistence, but the description omits these details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a tip, all front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 11 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the advanced techniques work internally. The tip suggests additional context, but the description itself is too minimal for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'suggest' and the resource 'architectural decisions (ADRs)', and mentions the use of advanced prompting techniques. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_adr_from_decision, but the purpose is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tip to read a context file implies the tool should be used after reviewing project history for consistency. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description adds minimal behavioral insight. It does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether updates overwrite or append. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence introduces the core action and context, the second adds status list and tier requirement. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context. It does not mention validation, error behavior, what happens to existing statuses, or the outcome of a successful update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the Pro+ tier requirement, which is not in the schema, but does not explain the adr_path format or the effect of the array parameter beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'implementation status of synced ADRs', and the context 'from the IDE'. It lists the supported statuses, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like analyze_adr_timeline or compare_adr_progress. Only mentions the Pro+ tier requirement, which is a constraint, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions advanced prompting techniques but does not disclose potential side effects, resource usage, or behavioral details beyond the technique names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could include more detail without losing conciseness, but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, process, or how the advanced techniques are used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs 'comprehensive recursive project ecosystem analysis' with advanced techniques, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific areas like environment, security, or deployment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other analysis tools. The description does not mention alternatives or specify scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'check', which implies a read operation, but does not confirm no side effects, required permissions, or any other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'check', and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters, the description omits what output to expect (e.g., configuration details, status flags). Without an output schema, the description should clarify this for effective debugging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool checks but does not need to explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the purpose: checking AI execution configuration and status for debugging prompt-only mode issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_environment or troubleshoot_guided_workflow, which have broader scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when debugging prompt-only mode issues, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as troubleshoot_guided_workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions advanced prompting and parameters like enhancedMode, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, or rate limits. Critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 16 words, which is very concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability. Overall, it is efficient but could be optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters including a nested object (conversationContext with 10 sub-fields) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output is (e.g., generated ADR files), how the context is used, or provide a link to expected results. Critical context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it references 'advanced prompting techniques' but does not elaborate on how each parameter affects behavior. The explanation of conversationContext is minimal and redundant with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: generating Architectural Decision Records from a Product Requirements Document. It specifies the resource (PRD file) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_adr_bootstrap or generate_adr_from_decision by mentioning advanced prompting techniques (APE + Knowledge Generation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a PRD exists and advanced ADR generation is desired, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_adr_bootstrap or generate_adr_todo. No exclusions or comparison to siblings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions file creation and @-referencing, implying a read-only generation operation. However, it does not specify whether the file is overwritten, or if there are any side effects or permissions needed. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The key information (what it does, output file, usage benefit) is front-loaded and clear. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the output and use case. However, it could mention the purpose of parameters (e.g., outputPath) or typical usage patterns to improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic beyond the schema, only general context. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to elaborate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive context file showing server state, memory, and capabilities. The specific output filename .mcp-server-context.md is mentioned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_architectural_context or get_conversation_snapshot, which might have overlapping purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any indication of appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or tips for leveraging the generated file. Sibling tools like get_conversation_snapshot and get_architectural_context suggest overlapping functionality, but no differentiation is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions retrieving a report with metrics but fails to state that it is a read-only operation, possible data source dependencies, or any side effects. The threshold parameter's impact on staleness calculation is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that pack the essential purpose and outcome. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's retrieval nature, the description could be more explicit about the output format or structure. It mentions 'review compliance metrics' and 'governance insights' but is vague. The threshold parameter's role is not clarified despite being essential for staleness determination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the report identifies stale ADRs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ADR staleness report from ADR Aggregator', clearly stating it identifies stale ADRs and provides governance insights. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or get_adr_priorities by focusing on staleness and compliance metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no explicit context signals or exclusions, so an agent has no help in differentiating usage from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the lazy loading behavior and the estimateOnly feature, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has any side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description lacks important behavioral context beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one defining purpose, one providing usage context. It is concise and direct with no unnecessary words. Could potentially be more structured (e.g., bullet points for use cases), but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and usage context but does not describe return values, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool that loads content, details about what is returned (e.g., string content) are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value for the 'section' parameter ('Available sections depend on the prompt'), but for other parameters it largely repeats the schema descriptions. No significant additional meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Load a specific prompt or prompt section'), the resource ('prompt'), and its role in the lazy loading system. It also lists specific use cases (ADR generation, analysis, deployment) which distinguish it from sibling tools that perform other functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests using the tool 'to retrieve prompt templates for ADR generation, analysis, deployment, and other operations' and mentions it's part of a lazy loading system to reduce token usage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives to consider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs analysis, test plan generation, memory integration, and ADR/research suggestion. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether it writes to memory or creates ADR files, nor does it mention required permissions or rate limits. Behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail on mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, moderately long sentence that tries to pack multiple features. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., tool purpose) and includes jargon like 'intelligent ADR/research suggestion capabilities' that adds verbosity. Could be more concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks specifics on return values, operation differences, and how to structure failure JSON. The schema fills some gaps, but the description could better guide agents on expected inputs and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra context, e.g., that 'failure' is required for certain operations (though schema marks it optional). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs 'structured failure analysis and test plan generation' with memory integration and ADR/research suggestion. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools (e.g., analyze_environment) and generation tools (e.g., generate_research_questions) by being a workflow for troubleshooting. However, the description is somewhat jumbled and could be more precise about the primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have structured failure info ('provide JSON failure info to get specific test commands'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_failure or generate_test_plan. No 'when-not' guidance or comparison with siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors like auto-detection of project phase, threshold adaptation, and generation of a work queue. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or requires permissions, leaving room for ambiguity about side effects. The description is moderately transparent but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action and key features. Every phrase adds value—smart time tracking, adaptive thresholds, actionable recommendations, and auto-detection—with zero redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides an overview but does not explain the return value format or structure. It mentions generating a 'prioritized work queue' but omits details on output schema, pagination, or how results are presented. For a complex analysis tool, this leaves the agent partially informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all 7 parameters documented. The description adds significant context beyond the schema by explaining that auto-detected context uses startup/growth/mature phases and that the generated work queue prioritizes based on staleness, implementation lag, and technical debt. This enriches the agent's understanding of how parameters influence analysis.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as analyzing ADR timelines with smart time tracking and actionable recommendations. It specifies auto-detection of project context and generation of a prioritized work queue, which aligns well with the tool name and differentiates it from generic analysis tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_project_ecosystem or compare_adr_progress.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for timeline analysis but omits exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar siblings such as analyze_deployment_progress or analyze_project_ecosystem, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions 'hard blocking' and 'emergency_override' but fails to clarify whether the tool performs actual deployments or only checks readiness. There is no mention of side effects, such as whether it mutates state or requires write permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is only two sentences, efficiently front-loading key capabilities and integration. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 24 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain return values, error states, or handling of complex operations like emergency_override. For a tool with multiple operations and strict defaults, more detail on expected outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, summarizing categories like 'test failure tracking' and 'deployment history analysis' but not enriching individual parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool does 'comprehensive deployment readiness validation' with specific capabilities like 'test failure tracking, deployment history analysis, and hard blocking'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_deployment_progress by emphasizing gating and blocking, and explicitly mentions integration with smart_git_push.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description hints at usage by mentioning integration with smart_git_push for deployment gating, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_deployment_progress or analyze_environment. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Team tier requirement but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or output size. Behavioral traits like mutability or performance impact are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information (source, capability, requirement). No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the returned knowledge graph looks like or its format. It mentions 'analytics and insights' but does not describe the output structure, which is a significant gap for a tool generating complex relational data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (scope, projectPath, include_analytics) already has a clear schema description. The tool description adds marginal value by linking 'analytics and insights' to include_analytics, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a cross-repository knowledge graph from ADR Aggregator, with analytics and insights. The verb 'Get' and resource 'knowledge graph' are specific, and the focus on visualizing ADR relationships distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or compare_adr_progress.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes 'Requires Team tier,' which is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for visualizing ADR relationships but lacks explicit when-to or when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by mentioning research integration, option evaluation, and automatic ADR generation. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., file creation, session storage), permissions, or state changes, leaving significant gaps for an interactive tool with many operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a useful tip. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite high schema coverage and a clear purpose, the description lacks crucial information for a complex interactive tool with 12 operations and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how sessions behave, or what each operation does, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema; the TIP about reading context file indirectly relates to projectPath but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's an interactive guided ADR planning and creation tool that walks through a structured decision-making process with research integration, option evaluation, and automatic ADR generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_adr_from_decision or suggest_adrs by emphasizing interactivity and multi-step guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides only a tip to read a context file but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_adr_from_decision or simple decision tools. No explicit guidance on when-not or which sibling tools are preferable for simpler tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description is the sole source. It states the review function but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error scenarios. The TIP hints at an output file, but overall behavioral scope unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose and actionable TIP. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 7 parameters including nested conversationContext and no output schema. Description does not explain what the review output looks like or how to interpret results. Missing guidance for complex parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so schema already explains parameters well. Description adds cloud/DevOps context that informs analysis depth and conversationContext use, but this is marginal value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool reviews ADRs against code implementation with cloud/DevOps expertise, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_adr' or 'discover_existing_adrs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a TIP for follow-up action (call get_server_context), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among many ADR-related siblings. No when-not or comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites external data), authentication needs, or error behavior for a tool that pushes data externally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information (target, purpose, modes). No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not explain return value or confirmation. Adequate for simple sync tool but missing success/failure behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. Description adds context about modes and metadata but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'sync' targets 'ADR Aggregator platform' with a specific URL and purpose (tracking, visualization, collaboration). Mentions supported modes, distinguishing it from all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implicit from purpose, but lacks comparison to alternatives like other ADR analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose tool behavior. It states the tool generates scripts but does not describe script content, filesystem impact, error handling, or conditions for success. The main content is a usage prerequisite, not the tool's own behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is longer but provides critical usage guidance. No redundant words, though the long second sentence slightly increases density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description omits behavioral details such as file overwriting, error handling, or expected output. The critical instruction is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding of tool operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates bootstrap.sh and validate_bootstrap.sh scripts for ADR compliance. The verb 'generate' and specific resource names provide precise purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze or validate ADRs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit prerequisite steps (use WebFetch to query base repository and documentation) and instructs to merge code rather than generate from scratch, guiding proper usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to or exclude alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves diagrams and requires Pro+ tier. It omits details like whether the tool modifies state, required permissions beyond tier, rate limits, or output behavior. For a read tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, clearly front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks output details; it mentions 'Mermaid diagrams' without clarifying how they are returned (e.g., raw syntax, URLs). Given the tool's function and the presence of many sibling ADR tools, more context about output structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('Mermaid diagrams for ADRs from ADR Aggregator'), and specifies diagram types ('workflow, relationship, and impact diagrams'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_adr_context' or 'generate_adr_bootstrap' which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Pro+ tier') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor explicit exclusions. The usage context is implied by the tool's purpose but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe to call repeatedly. Minimal additional behavioral context is offered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description partially explains the return value (gaps with status), but it does not detail other potential fields (e.g., description, location). Given three parameters and simple retrieval, it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the returned status values but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves current code gaps from a specific source (ADR Aggregator) and returns them with status information. The verb 'Get' and resource 'code gaps' are specific, and the source distinguishes it from potential sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_gaps'. No context on prerequisites or scenarios where it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose safety (read-only or destructive), authentication needs, or side effects. Only states what is fetched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a usage note. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description lists key output components and states 'consolidated view', which is adequate for a fetch tool. Lacks mention of output structure, but schema covers parameters. Good given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description summarizes parameters but adds no new meaning beyond schema; e.g., 'summaries' is not a parameter, but mentioned as output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it fetches ADR context with specific components (summaries, diagrams, timeline, code links) and differentiates from sibling tools like get_adr_diagrams by emphasizing a consolidated view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Useful for getting a consolidated view' implies usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like specialized fetch tools. No when-not or alternative names given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cascading search order and fallback to web search, and mentions confidence thresholds. However, it does not explain side effects (if any), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only, leaving behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a colon-separated list, which is concise and efficient. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains the process but omits return value format, error handling, or success criteria. For a comprehensive research tool, output behavior should be clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about cascading sources but does not enhance individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Parameters like projectPath and adrDirectory are adequately described in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'perform research' and specifies the resource as 'cascading sources' with a clear order: project files, knowledge graph, environment resources, web search fallback. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like llm_web_search or analyze_environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for answering research questions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_codebase or analyze_* tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists files and folders, which is a safe read operation, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid paths), return format, or whether it follows symlinks. Basic transparency but lacks behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Every word earns its place, achieving high efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks details on output format, error cases, and differentiation from sibling 'list_directory'. Could be more complete for full autonomy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds practical context beyond the schema: 'relative to project root or absolute within roots'. This clarifies path semantics, aiding correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists files and folders in a directory, with the purpose of exploring file structure. It specifies 'within accessible roots', adding scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_directory', which likely has similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exploring file structure but offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Notably, 'list_directory' exists as a sibling, yet no distinction is provided, leaving the agent uncertain which to choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'No authentication required.' With no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, caches data, or has any rate limits. The 'Get' verb implies read but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and including a key behavioral note (no auth). No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers purpose and a constraint, it omits what the output format is (list? text?) and whether the domain filter is exact or partial. Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description aligns with the parameter examples (e.g., web_application). However, the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's domain list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states that the tool retrieves domain-specific ADR templates and anti-patterns, listing example domains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_adr_context or get_adr_diagrams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that no authentication is required, which is helpful. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the operations without detailing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple CRUD tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but fails to describe the return value or confirm success. It could provide more context on expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions entity types (intents, ADRs, tools, code) which are already in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs CRUD operations on the knowledge graph, specifically adding/removing entities and relationships. It distinguishes from reading by mentioning the knowledge://graph resource for reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent to use the knowledge://graph resource for reading, implying when to use this tool for modifications. However, it does not explicitly exclude other write tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses scanning actions (file references, package.json, architectural patterns) and reporting to ADR Aggregator. While it doesn't detail permissions or side effects, it gives a clear behavioral picture without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with purpose, then enumerates gap types in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, no extraneous text. Efficient and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description fails to explain what the tool returns to the caller. It only says 'Reports gaps to ADR Aggregator,' leaving the return value ambiguous. For a complex analysis tool, this is a significant omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., projectPath, excludePatterns). It simply reiterates the general scanning behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool scans local codebase and ADRs to detect bidirectional gaps, listing two specific types (ADR-to-code and Code-to-ADR). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_adr_timeline or analyze_content_security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage when gaps between ADRs and code need detection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_gaps for reading existing gaps, validate_adr for validating ADRs). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the retrieval action without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences cover the core action, usage trigger, and optionality. Front-loaded with the main verb 'Retrieve', no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and usage trigger. Without an output schema, it could mention return format or size, but the current text is adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool in a context where other tools handle generation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'expandable ID' and 'specific section' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already describes each parameter well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves analysis content from tiered responses using an expandable ID, directly distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools that generate or analyze content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use the tool when a tool returns a summary with an expandable ID, providing clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosure. It indicates a read operation returning multiple fields but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. While it clarifies the data source ('from ADR Aggregator'), it lacks explicit safety guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences (17 words), front-loading the purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the returned data and source. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., empty results) and does not clarify ordering or pagination, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it repeats the return info but does not explain parameter semantics further. The parameter descriptions themselves are adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'ADR priorities' for 'roadmap and backlog planning' and lists the specific data included (scores, dependencies, blockers, etc.), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gaps or get_staleness_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for roadmap and backlog planning but provides no explicit guidance on when to or not to use this tool compared to alternatives such as analyze_gaps or get_staleness_report. A clear when-to-use statement is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions security features like credential detection and file filtering, and implies behavior around test results (required, may block push). However, it does not detail what happens on credential detection, how file filtering works, or the exact push workflow (e.g., remote interaction). The description partially discloses behavior but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences. The first sentence packs key features efficiently, and the second provides a critical usage note. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 7 parameters and a nested testResults object, the description is somewhat lacking. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or the overall workflow (e.g., staging files, remote push). The requirement to provide test results is mentioned but not fully explained. The description is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only noting that test results are required. It does not elaborate on branch, message, or other parameters beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a git push with security features (credential detection, file filtering, deployment metrics). The verb 'push' and resource 'git' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools by highlighting the security and AI-driven aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is used for pushing code with security checks and requires test results. It implies tests should be run beforehand, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given no sibling git push tool, the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses return formats (ISO, human, ADR) and implies no side effects. However, it does not specify behavior like whether it uses system clock or supports timezone rules, leaving some ambiguity for a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage context. No filler words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description adequately covers inputs and output summaries. Could mention return shape (e.g., object with format keys) but not critical for this simple tool. Contextual completeness is high.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds 'ISO 8601, human-readable, and ADR-specific date formats' but largely repeats schema enum meanings. Minimal added value beyond schema, meets baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'current date and time' with specific output formats (ISO 8601, human-readable, ADR). Context hints at sibling differentiation (timestamping ADRs, research documents) distinguishing it from analytical or file manipulation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context for 'timestamping ADRs, research documents, and other architectural artifacts,' implying when to use. No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but no direct sibling datetime tool exists, so guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'list available file system roots'. It does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or output details, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is adequate: it states purpose and usage. Could specify output format (e.g., paths or names), but still sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no parameters (coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output (roots), compensating for absence of parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (file system roots), and purpose (discover directories before reading). It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory and read_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to discover what directories are available before reading files', providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses default behavior (returns lightweight metadata) and effect of includeSchema, but does not mention ordering, pagination, error handling, or auth requirements. Adequate for a simple search.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. Extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return behavior (lightweight vs full schemas) but does not specify exact metadata fields. Parameters are well-covered. Enough for a search tool but could be more detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context by mentioning 'category, keyword, or capability' which maps to parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches and discovers tools by category, keyword, or capability. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a meta-tool for finding the right tool, and explicitly says 'use this to find the right tool for a task without loading all tool schemas'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on when to use (to find tools without loading all schemas) and suggests using includeSchema:true for full schemas. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states dynamic path setting and that subsequent calls use this path, which is adequate. However, it doesn't discuss potential side effects or if the path persists across sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: action, usage timing, and consequence. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (no output schema, 2 params). Description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral impact, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by explaining that the path becomes the default for subsequent calls, but does not elaborate on validatePath beyond the schema's default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'set' with resource 'active project path' and clearly states session scope. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it avoids restarting the server and only affects the current session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to call at the start of a session to switch projects, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: does not execute commands internally, requires human approval, validates environment, supports cleanup/teardown. However, it does not cover authentication or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is detailed but well-structured with headings and bullet points. It is slightly verbose but every section adds necessary context for the iterative workflow. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, iterative flow), the description explains the workflow well but omits return format (no output schema) and error handling. Output behavior is only hinted ('provides next steps').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter roles in the iterative process (e.g., currentIteration tracks progress, previousExecutionOutput feeds results). This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as an interactive, step-by-step deployment validation workflow. It specifies verbs like 'guides' and 'tells you what commands to run', and distinguishes from sibling tools by its iterative, non-executing nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to call the tool (for deployment validation), how to use it iteratively (first call with iteration=0, subsequent calls with output), and what to expect. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but provides sufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses key behaviors: idempotence ('Re-runs are idempotent'), handling of stale ADRs ('tasks for deleted/superseded ADRs move to a Stale Tasks section'), preservation of manual edits ('preserves manual edits via a bounded HTML-comment section'), and TDD pairing options via the phase parameter. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose ('Generate TODO.md from ADRs with comprehensive task breakdown') then adds important details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, all optional) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers idempotence, stale task handling, manual edit preservation, dry-run behavior, and milestone linking. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., ADRs must exist). Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for how parameters like 'phase' and 'scope' affect output, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. The overall behavioral explanation compensates slightly, but per-parameter details are already sufficient in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates TODO.md from ADRs, decomposing each ADR into paired test+production tasks, linking to milestones, preserving manual edits, and being idempotent. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'TODO.md' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_adr_bootstrap or generate_adr_from_decision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like generate_adr_bootstrap or other ADR manipulation tools. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-adr-analysis-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-adr-analysis-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server