generate_adrs_from_prd

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it generates ADRs with advanced prompting, but does not explain side effects (e.g., file creation, overwrite behavior), permissions needed, or return format. This is a significant gap for a file-generation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and techniques. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the acronyms 'APE' and 'Knowledge Generation' are not expanded, which could cause confusion but are explained via the schema parameter names.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on output, error handling, and prerequisites. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent needing to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description mentions 'APE + Knowledge Generation', which aligns with parameters like 'promptOptimization' and 'knowledgeEnhancement', but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 generates Architectural Decision Records from a Product Requirements Document, using specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'PRD'. This differentiates it from siblings like 'generate_adr_from_decision' and 'generate_adr_bootstrap', which have different inputs. No ambiguity.

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 use when a PRD is available, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. It provides clear context for the typical use case, but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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