get_naming_convention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only analysis' and 'Side effects: Read-only. No files modified.' largely restate structured data. The description does add some value by naming the return payload fields (detected style, confidence score, examples, recommendations) and the fact that analysis is heuristic rather than exhaustive, but it discloses nothing about permissions, cost, or how confidence is derived.

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 labeled sections (What it does / When to use / When NOT to use / Side effects / Parameters / Returns) make it scannable and front-loaded. But the opening line and the 'What it does' line say the same thing, and the read-only guarantee appears three times, so several sentences do not earn their place.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool this covers usage, alternatives, accepted parameter values, and the shape of the result. An output schema exists, so the Returns section is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the only remaining soft spot is that 'dimension' as a token type is never defined.

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% and the schema has no enum, so the description is doing real work by enumerating the accepted values 'dimension' (default) and 'color'. It does not explain what distinguishes a dimension token from a color token, which would have fully closed the gap.

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 and resource: detects camelCase, snake_case, or PascalCase usage across project tokens. It also carves out a clear boundary against list_tokens, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling that inspects token values without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: call before add_token or replace_pattern to keep new tokens consistent with the existing style. Explicit when-not-to-use: do not use it to read token values, use list_tokens instead. Both the positive and negative routing conditions are stated.

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