get_adr_priorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying that the tool returns prioritized ADRs with scores, dependencies, blockers, implementation status, and gap counts, and notes the data source (ADR Aggregator). This adds meaningful detail without contradicting the 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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and purpose, while the second enumerates the outputs. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers return values (scores, dependencies, blockers, implementation status, gap counts). Safety behavior is covered by annotations, parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the tool's role is unambiguously stated. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both parameters (include_ai and projectPath) fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but it doesn't need to; it stays at the baseline of 3 given the schema's exhaustive coverage.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('ADR priorities'), and a defined source ('ADR Aggregator'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying its purpose (roadmap and backlog planning) and the exact return contents (scores, dependencies, blockers, implementation status, gap counts), making it clear what this tool provides versus others like get_gaps or get_adr_context.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('for roadmap and backlog planning'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. While the sibling list suggests alternatives, the description itself provides no exclusion guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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