validate_adr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that the validation is 'research-driven' and involves comparing findings against patterns, which gives some insight into its internal behavior. However, it does not explain what 'infrastructure reality' entails, whether external network calls are made, or what the output structure looks like. Given that annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the second provides a useful tip for consistency checks. It is front-loaded and has zero fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it an example of efficient structuring.

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 is moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema, and the description is minimal. While annotations cover the safety profile, the description does not explain what 'research-driven analysis' entails, what 'infrastructure reality' means, or how validation results are returned. Given the tool's apparent complexity (checking against live infrastructure), the description leaves several operational details unspecified. The tip hints at consistency checks but does not fully compensate. A 3 reflects that the description is adequate but has notable gaps.

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%, meaning every parameter (adrPath, projectPath, adrDirectory, confidenceThreshold, includeEnvironmentCheck) is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters—it merely repeats the purpose. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct, and the description provides no extra value beyond that.

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 (validate), the resource (existing ADR), and the target (actual infrastructure reality), which distinguishes it from general ADR validation tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like validate_all_adrs or validate_adr_compliance to differentiate them, so it misses the explicit sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_all_adrs or validate_adr_compliance. The tip about comparing findings against patterns in @.mcp-server-context.md is operational advice, not a usage guideline. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the specific scenario where this singular validation is preferred over batch or compliance checks.

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