get_adr_templates

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond those by disclosing that no authentication is required and that the data comes from ADR Aggregator, which is useful context not present in 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?

Three short sentences with no fluff: purpose, content coverage, and auth requirement are all front-loaded and relevant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and strong safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies source, content, domain applicability, and auth. It does not describe the return format or behavior when the domain is omitted, but these are 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's domain examples (web applications, microservices, APIs) reinforce the domain parameter but do not add new meaning beyond the schema's own examples and 'etc.' qualifier.

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 action ('Get'), a clear resource ('domain-specific ADR templates and anti-patterns'), and a source ('ADR Aggregator'). It distinguishes itself from generation-oriented siblings like generate_adrs_from_prd or suggest_adrs by focusing on retrieving templates and best practices.

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 domain-specific ADR templates or best practices are needed and explicitly notes 'No authentication required.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the resource type.

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