roam_get_guidelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it returns `roamSyntax` on every call, returns `exists:false` instead of failing when no page exists, returns today's daily note title, and explains that conventions affect interpretation/presentation, not just writing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than the absolute minimum but well-structured: purpose, special return value, usage instruction, sibling differentiation, and existence behavior are each in their own sentence/paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what is returned (user conventions, roamSyntax, daily note title, exists:false), why it must be called before other tools, and the behavior when no guidelines page exists. It fully covers the operational context a read tool with no output schema needs.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (`graph` and `write_key`) with descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the guidelines page is 'configurable per graph', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve this graph's user-defined agent conventions', and names the source page `[[roam/agent guidelines]]`. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `roam_markdown_cheatsheet` by stating what each is for, eliminating ambiguity.

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 instructs 'Call this ONCE per graph per session, before other tools, INCLUDING for reads' and contrasts with the alternative: 'Call that when you need to look something up; this one you need before writing at all.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a direct sibling reference.

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