generate_adr_todo

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: TDD pairing, milestone linking, preservation of manual edits via HTML comments, idempotency, and handling of stale tasks for deleted/superseded ADRs. This exceeds expectations.

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 concise (4 sentences, ~90 words) and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, decomposition details, manual edit handling, idempotency/stale tasks. No redundant or wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core process and key behaviors well, but lacks details about the output format (structure of TODO.md, task formatting, milestone integration). Given no output schema, slightly more on output would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'TDD pairing' and 'preview only' for dryRun, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 generates a TODO.md file from ADRs with a comprehensive task breakdown. It specifies the TDD approach, linking to milestones, and idempotent re-runs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_adr_bootstrap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a task breakdown from ADRs is needed, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools suggests use cases, but the description itself lacks this clarity.

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