Get coding conventions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation, which implies non-mutating behavior, but does not add further detail such as return format or edge cases. The 'Call this BEFORE' instruction provides useful contextual behavior beyond a simple read, but more depth would be needed for a higher score.

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 concise, with only two sentences. It front-loads the action with 'Read the project coding conventions' and the second sentence provides valuable usage guidance without any waste.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states the action and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe what the tool returns, which would be expected without an output schema, but the word 'Read' reasonably implies the conventions are the output. A brief mention of the return value would make it fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds an implicit 'project' context but does not need to explain parameters because none exist in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads project coding conventions, using the specific verb 'Read' and a distinct resource. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like save_conventions.

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 instructs to call this tool before writing or changing code, providing clear timing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the instruction implies when it is necessary.

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