List architecture decision records

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

Annotations already mark it read-only. The description adds the specific fields returned, which provides useful detail beyond the annotations. No mention of pagination or limits, but the tool is likely simple enough.

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 one efficient sentence followed by a clarifying clause. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure. It covers the core functionality well, though missing potential details like ordering or pagination. Annotations add safety context.

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 coverage is 50% (only ticket has a description). The description adds meaning for 'ticket' by stating it filters decisions, but 'project' remains undocumented. With partial coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 it reads a project's ADR log and returns structured entries. The verb 'read' and resource 'ADR log' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_decision' which writes.

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 explains when to use this tool (to list ADRs) and how to filter by ticket. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given siblings like 'add_decision'.

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