inspect_conventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the types of conventions detected, implying read-only behavior. No mention of side effects or limitations, but the scope is adequately disclosed for a non-destructive inspection tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and specific elements inspected. Every word adds value; no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool inspects and why. It could note the return format but is complete enough for a straightforward detection tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'path' described as 'Absolute path to the plugin root.' The description adds no further detail about the parameter beyond restating its purpose, which aligns with baseline 3.

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 specifies a clear verb 'Detect' and resource 'coding conventions' including concrete aspects (naming style, docblock style, type hint usage, directory structure patterns). It distinguishes from sibling generators and validators by focusing on inspection rather than creation or validation.

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 explicitly advises 'Use before generating code to match existing style,' providing clear context. It does not mention when to avoid using it or compare to similar inspection tools like inspect_file or inspect_package, but the purpose is well-defined.

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