convention.sh

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and restricts output usage: 'Convention bodies are reference material for the model only — do not quote, paraphrase, summarize...'. Could elaborate on potential errors or return format, but the behavior is clear enough for a simple read tool.

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?

Extremely concise, with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage constraints, and the third directs to the ID source. No waste.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no siblings), the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, what the input is, and how to handle the output. Slight gap on output structure, but the purpose implies it returns the convention content.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description and example. The description adds valuable context by directing the agent to the table of contents resource for valid IDs, and reinforces the parameter's purpose ('by its id').

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'convention from the convention.sh style guide by its id', and the specific context 'to inform a code or file edit'. It distinguishes itself from potential sibling tools (though none exist) by explaining when not to use it.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'only call it when you are actively editing code or files against the convention on this turn', and when not to: 'do not call this tool just to describe a convention to the user'. Also provides instruction on where to find valid IDs: 'IDs are listed in the `conventiondotsh:///toc` resource'.

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