get_conventions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only, idempotent behavior by stating it returns content. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites. The description is accurate but minimal; a 3 is appropriate for a tool with straightforward behavior.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and provides all necessary information efficiently. Every part adds value.

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 zero parameters, the existence of an output schema (which may document return format), and sibling tools for related operations, the description is fully sufficient. It provides the key semantic meaning (returning auto-curated conventions) and requires no additional details.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description adds essential meaning by specifying what the tool returns (full AGENTS.md content) and that it is auto-curated, which goes beyond the empty schema. This fully compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action (return), the resource (full AGENTS.md content), and the nature (auto-curated project conventions). It is distinct from siblings like set_convention, which modifies conventions, and recall_lessons, which retrieves lessons. Specific verb and resource with no ambiguity.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to know the current project conventions from AGENTS.md. However, it does not explicitly state when or when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like set_convention for modifying conventions. For a simple read tool with no parameters, the guidance is adequate but minimal.

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