interactive_adr_planning

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by mentioning research integration, option evaluation, and automatic ADR generation. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., file creation, session storage), permissions, or state changes, leaving significant gaps for an interactive tool with many operations.

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, front-loaded with purpose and a useful tip. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite high schema coverage and a clear purpose, the description lacks crucial information for a complex interactive tool with 12 operations and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how sessions behave, or what each operation does, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 no extra parameter details beyond the schema; the TIP about reading context file indirectly relates to projectPath but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 it's an interactive guided ADR planning and creation tool that walks through a structured decision-making process with research integration, option evaluation, and automatic ADR generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_adr_from_decision or suggest_adrs by emphasizing interactivity and multi-step guidance.

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 only a tip to read a context file but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_adr_from_decision or simple decision tools. No explicit guidance on when-not or which sibling tools are preferable for simpler tasks.

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