convention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions basic effects (store, retrieve, check, remove) but omits side effects, permissions, idempotency, error handling, or concurrency details.

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 short and uses a clear list format to separate operations. Every sentence contributes value; no redundant text. Slightly more structure (e.g., parameter roles) could improve readability.

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?

With 8 parameters, 4 operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or default behavior for optional parameters, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It maps parameters to operations (e.g., rule, category for 'add'; rule for 'remove'), adding grouping information not in the schema. However, it still lacks detailed semantics for each parameter.

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 identifies the tool as handling project conventions with four explicit operations (add, get, check, remove). Each operation is briefly described, and the tool is distinct from siblings like code_pattern_check or code_quality_check.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists operations without context on when each is appropriate or what prerequisites exist.

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