discover_existing_adrs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.