get_code_conventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavior details: conventions are inferred from existing symbols rather than documentation, and each rule includes evidence and confidence. This sets correct expectations about the output's nature and quality without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 well structured and front-loaded: it states the action, gives the critical usage instruction, explains why the tool exists, lists the covered conventions, and documents the argument. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, what kind of results to expect (evidence + confidence), which areas it covers, and what the path argument means. Nothing needed for invocation is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the sole parameter: 'path: Project file or directory.' This adds meaning that a bare 'path' string would not convey. It could go further with path type details, but for one parameter it is adequate.

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: 'Report the coding conventions this project already follows.' It then enumerates concrete covered topics (variable prefixes, instance naming, documentation habits) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_fb_signature, get_tasks, or get_types.

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: 'Call this before generating code.' It also explains why it is necessary, that conventions are only visible in existing symbols and not written down. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the intended context is clear.

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