suggest_adrs

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

The description adds behavioral context by naming Knowledge Generation + Reflexion and referencing a context file for consistency. Annotations already carry read-only/idempotent/non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower, but the description does not disclose output behavior or what 'suggest' returns.

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 with the primary action first and the context tip second; no filler. It is concise and scannable, though slightly jargon-heavy with 'Knowledge Generation + Reflexion'.

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?

Given the large number of parameters and nested objects, the description is brief but the schema is rich and annotations cover safety. It lacks a note on what the suggestion output looks like or how the various analysis modes differ, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters and nested fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but keeps this at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('architectural decisions'), and it names the advanced prompting approach. It clearly communicates the core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling generation tools like generate_adr_from_decision or generate_adrs_rom_prd.

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 implies usage by saying 'Suggest architectural decisions' and provides a helpful prerequisite tip to read @. mcp-server-context.md. It does not, however, give explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it.

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