get_adr_priorities

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosure. It indicates a read operation returning multiple fields but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. While it clarifies the data source ('from ADR Aggregator'), it lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 with two sentences (17 words), front-loading the purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the returned data and source. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., empty results) and does not clarify ordering or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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 minimal value beyond the schema; it repeats the return info but does not explain parameter semantics further. The parameter descriptions themselves are adequate.

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 returns 'ADR priorities' for 'roadmap and backlog planning' and lists the specific data included (scores, dependencies, blockers, etc.), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gaps or get_staleness_report.

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 for roadmap and backlog planning but provides no explicit guidance on when to or not to use this tool compared to alternatives such as analyze_gaps or get_staleness_report. A clear when-to-use statement is missing.

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