get_adr_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds modest behavioral context by naming the source (ADR Aggregator) and the bundled content categories, but it does not disclose tier-gating behavior (Team vs Pro+ features already noted in the schema) or any response-shape details. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core action and content scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the use-case framing in the second earns its place. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

For a 7-parameter read-only tool with a 100%-covered schema, a strong annotation profile, and no output schema, the description provides adequate orientation by enumerating what the response includes. The main gaps are minor: tier restrictions are mentioned only in parameter descriptions rather than the tool description, and return format is not specified — but the listed content categories partially compensate for the missing output schema.

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 the baseline of 3 applies — every parameter already carries meaningful documentation (e.g., include_diagrams is 'Include Mermaid diagrams (Pro+ tier)' and staleness_filter has an enum with default 'all'). The description loosely groups some parameters through its content list (diagrams, timeline, code links), but adds no format, syntax, or interaction semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('ADR context from ADR Aggregator'), and enumerates the content types returned (summaries, diagrams, timeline data, code links). It also frames the value as a 'consolidated view of architectural decisions.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like get_architectural_context or get_knowledge_graph.

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 second sentence ('Useful for getting a consolidated view of architectural decisions') provides a clear use case that tells an agent when to select this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions and does not name alternatives, but the context is concrete enough to guide selection without being merely implied.

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