suggest_adrs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions advanced techniques like Knowledge Generation and Reflexion but does not explain their behavior, side effects, or whether the tool writes data. The learning and knowledge generation parameters hint at persistence, but the description omits these details.

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 plus a tip, all front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

Despite having 11 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the advanced techniques work internally. The tip suggests additional context, but the description itself is too minimal for the complexity.

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?

The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage. 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 'suggest' and the resource 'architectural decisions (ADRs)', and mentions the use of advanced prompting techniques. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_adr_from_decision, but the purpose is evident.

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 tip to read a context file implies the tool should be used after reviewing project history for consistency. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor when not to use this tool.

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