project_conventions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether saving is destructive or reversible, whether any permissions/auth are required, what the native-scan dependency implies, or what a 'save' overwrites - critical gaps for a tool whose default mode is read but which also mutates shared defaults.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operations are stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined density.

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?

For a three-parameter, multi-mode tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, this one sentence is far from complete. It omits mode-to-parameter mapping, the shape of settings, the origin of scan_id, and any return-value or error behavior.

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 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The words 'read/save/suggest' loosely imply the mode param and 'native scan' hints at scan_id, but there is no explicit mapping, and the settings object's expected keys (naming, folder, preparation, intake) are only indirectly gestured at.

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?

States specific verbs (read/save/suggest) and a resource (shared naming, folder, preparation and intake defaults), so an agent can roughly grasp the domain. However, it bundles three distinct operations into one vague clause and never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_style/set_project_style, leaving the boundary of 'conventions' fuzzy.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The 'or suggest prefixes from a native scan' clause hints at a conditional mode but never explains when an agent should pick read vs save vs suggest, or how this differs from the project-style tools.

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