mcp-adr-analysis-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions validation 'against actual infrastructure reality' and implies environment checking via the parameter, but doesn't disclose what validation entails (e.g., read-only vs. mutating operations, potential side effects, performance impact, or output format). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (validating ADRs against infrastructure), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what validation results look like, what happens during 'live environment verification', or how confidence scoring works. For a tool that likely involves significant processing and infrastructure interaction, more context is needed.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'actual infrastructure reality' means or how validation uses these parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('validate') and target ('all ADRs in a directory') with a specific purpose ('against actual infrastructure reality'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'validate_adr' by specifying 'all ADRs' rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other validation siblings like 'validate_content_masking' or 'validate_rules'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'validate_adr' (for single ADRs) or other validation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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