review_existing_adrs

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

With no annotations, description is the sole source. It states the review function but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error scenarios. The TIP hints at an output file, but overall behavioral scope unclear.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose and actionable TIP. No redundant words.

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?

Tool has 7 parameters including nested conversationContext and no output schema. Description does not explain what the review output looks like or how to interpret results. Missing guidance for complex parameter usage.

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 schema already explains parameters well. Description adds cloud/DevOps context that informs analysis depth and conversationContext use, but this is marginal value beyond schema.

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 states the tool reviews ADRs against code implementation with cloud/DevOps expertise, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_adr' or 'discover_existing_adrs'.

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?

Provides a TIP for follow-up action (call get_server_context), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among many ADR-related siblings. No when-not or comparison.

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