review_existing_adrs

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it writes to files), permissions needed, or return format. The tip hints at possible file updates but only indirectly.

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 a single sentence plus a helpful tip. No wasted words, and the tip provides actionable context.

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 7 parameters and nested objects, the description does not explain output or return value. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a report, suggestions) or whether it modifies files.

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% with each parameter well-described. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Review'), the resource ('existing ADRs against actual code implementation'), and the domain ('with cloud/DevOps expertise'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_gaps or validate_adr.

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 includes a tip suggesting a follow-up action ('After review, call get_server_context'), implying a workflow but not explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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