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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing the Markdown return format, grouping by category, and the fields included for each convention. It does not contradict annotations and adds context that an agent needs to interpret results.

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: purpose, side-effect safety, output format, and usage guidance appear in four tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place and the alternative-tool pointer is included without bloat.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters, no output schema, and safe read-only annotations. The description compensates for the missing output schema by detailing the returned Markdown structure and fields. The repository-omission behavior is captured in the schema, so no critical context is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions including examples, case-insensitivity, and behavior when omitted. The main description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Get the coding conventions Moxie inferred for the repository') and clearly defines the output format and categories. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from moxie.get_doc_impact by noting the scope difference, which makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for the general rules to follow') and an explicit alternative with a condition ('when you already know the files you're about to edit, prefer moxie.get_doc_impact'). This is strong usage direction that helps an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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