interactive_adr_planning

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

No annotations are provided. The description states it 'generates ADRs' implying file creation, but does not disclose whether it modifies existing files, requires permissions, or has any destructive effects. The interactive nature suggests statefulness, but session behavior and side effects are not explained.

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 very concise: one sentence for the main purpose plus a helpful tip. It front-loads the core functionality and avoids unnecessary text. Every word 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?

For a tool with 13 enumerated operations and a complex interactive workflow, the description lacks detail on the process flow, phase sequence, or how operations interact. No output schema is provided to describe return values. Users would need additional documentation to use the tool effectively.

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%, and parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds general context about the process but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters or their relationships (e.g., how operations flow or how input interacts with phases).

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as an 'Interactive guided ADR planning and creation tool' that walks users through a structured decision-making process with research integration and automatic ADR generation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_adr_from_decision or generate_adrs_from_prd, which are more specific one-step generators.

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 provides a tip to read a context file but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose interactive planning over direct ADR generation). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are mentioned.

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