validate_adr_compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the Pro+ tier requirement and the dependency on the ADR Aggregator, which are important operational constraints.

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: the first sentence states the verb, resource, and mechanism, while the second clarifies the core purpose. The tier requirement is included without clutter, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description provides enough context for invocation: what is validated, how it is done, and the Pro+ tier prerequisite. It does not explain return format or behavior when no adr_paths are provided, but the schema and annotations cover the essential operational details.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters, including the validation_type enum and the default for projectPath, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond the general notion of validating ADR compliance, which is sufficient for 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the exact resource and focus: ADR compliance against implementation via the ADR Aggregator. It further clarifies the meaning by stating it 'Checks that code actually implements documented decisions,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_adr or validate_all_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?

The description gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when there is a need to verify that code implementation matches documented ADRs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the implementation-vs-documentation angle provides enough situational clarity to guide selection among siblings.

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