mcp-adr-analysis-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate' implies a read-only analysis operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this tool modifies anything, what permissions might be required, what happens with validation failures, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'architectural rules' means in practice, what the validation process entails, what happens with results, or how this differs from other validation tools. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Validate code against architectural rules' clearly states the action (validate) and target (code against architectural rules), but it's somewhat vague about what 'architectural rules' specifically means. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling validation tools like validate_adr, validate_all_adrs, or validate_content_masking, leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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. With multiple validation-related sibling tools (validate_adr, validate_all_adrs, validate_content_masking), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those other validation tools.

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