generate_adr_todo

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thoroughly discloses key behaviors: idempotence ('Re-runs are idempotent'), handling of stale ADRs ('tasks for deleted/superseded ADRs move to a Stale Tasks section'), preservation of manual edits ('preserves manual edits via a bounded HTML-comment section'), and TDD pairing options via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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.