get_adr_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'No authentication required', which is helpful, but it does not disclose other traits like caching, external API calls, or idempotency. The description adequately suggests a read-only operation.

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 no superfluous words. The first sentence defines the core action and resource, and the second adds content scope and authentication status. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool retrieves, domain applicability, and authentication. It could mention the return format or include an example, but the current information is sufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the tool description does not add semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. The description briefly restates the domain values (web applications, microservices, APIs) but offers no additional constraints or format guidance.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'ADR templates and anti-patterns', and the domain-specific nature. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_adr_diagrams' or 'get_adr_priorities' by specifying the exact content (templates and anti-patterns) and the source (ADR Aggregator).

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 when needing templates or anti-patterns for a specific domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance. No sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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