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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'write' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing files, appends, creates new files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a file system operation.

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 four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and resource.

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 file system mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like file creation vs. overwriting, permission requirements, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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%, with both parameters ('path' and 'content') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('write') and resource ('content to a file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'list_directory' beyond the obvious verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'read_file' or 'list_directory', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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