Start convention interview

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns questions, advises to ask them conversationally rather than all at once, and instructs a follow-up action. It does not disclose potential side effects like duplicate calls, but the guidance to call 'ONCE' implies idempotency concerns.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the most critical instruction ('Call this ONCE at the start'), and every sentence provides actionable guidance. No fluff or repetition of existing schema data.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to invoke, what it returns (questions), how to interact with the human (conversationally), and what to do next. It is complete within its scope and compared to sibling tools.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter projectName ('Name of the project being set up'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only indirectly referencing a 'new project'. Per the baseline rule, schema covers the parameter so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to start a convention interview at the beginning of a new project and return questions to ask the human. It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('convention interview'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by its explicit tie to saving conventions via 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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: call ONCE at the start of work on a new project, before writing code. It also gives a follow-up step (call save_conventions with answers), which clarifies the tool's role in the workflow. This effectively differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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