generate_adr_from_decision

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., file creation, directory usage). It only mentions 'Generate' without clarifying if it writes to disk, returns data, or requires permissions. This is insufficient for a tool with potential write operations.

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 one concise sentence plus a TIP, but the TIP is external guidance not essential for tool selection. The sentence is front-loaded with purpose, but could be more informative about behavior or output structure.

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 the tool's complexity (nested decisionData, 4 params, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, such as format guidelines or relationships, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 it generates a complete ADR from decision data, with a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes a 'complete ADR,' and the distinction from siblings like 'generate_adr_bootstrap' or 'generate_adrs_from_prd' is not explicitly articulated, slightly reducing clarity.

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. The description only includes a TIP about referencing a context file, which does not help the agent decide between this and similar ADR generation tools.

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