Get conventions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the "Read-only" sentence is redundant. The genuinely additive disclosure is that conventions differ between modules — non-obvious context an agent would otherwise not have.

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?

Two dense front-loaded sentences that earn their place, followed by a cryptic bracketed rules footer (GEN-006/010/016) whose meaning is opaque without external context. Minor waste, otherwise efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must stand in for it; it scopes the covered content well but does not hint at the return shape or size. Adequate for a single-param read-only knowledge lookup.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It enumerates all seven enum values (units, coordinates, floors, ids, files, aset, all) and adds the default of "all", which the schema does not state.

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 a specific verb+resource (get conventions) and enumerates exactly what conventions are covered: units, coordinate axes, story/floorIndex numbering, id rules, file conventions. No sibling tool does anything comparable, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

"read this before building a model from a drawing" gives an explicit usage trigger, and the description points at bulc_knowledge_search for rule lookups. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the positive context is unambiguous.

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