review_existing_adrs

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation and adds a small amount of context: the cloud/DevOps analytical perspective and the fact that findings are meant to be persisted later via get_server_context. However, it does not disclose operational details such as file read scope, analysis depth semantics, or side effects beyond the annotation's read-only signal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful actionable TIP. The 'cloud/DevOps expertise' phrase is slightly generic but does not add meaningful bloat.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, so the description carries more responsibility to explain what the review produces. It only mentions 'findings' without describing their structure, and it does not clarify how analysisDepth affects output or how specificAdr is matched. The agent must infer too much from the name and schema alone.

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 the description's omission of parameter details is acceptable. It adds no additional meaning about how projectPath, adrDirectory, or analysisDepth interact, but the schema already documents these sufficiently.

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?

States a specific action ('Review') on a defined resource ('existing ADRs') with an explicit comparison target ('actual code implementation'). It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like validate_adr or suggest_adrs, though it doesn't name them.

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 phrasing implies when the tool is relevant—checking ADRs against implementation—but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative sibling tools. The TIP about get_server_context is follow-up workflow advice, not selection guidance.

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