Get Conventions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description only lists content topics; it says nothing about how conventions are returned, whether they include code samples, or how version selection affects results, which is the kind of context that would add real value here.

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?

It is a single compact sentence covering the resource and its scope with no filler. The trade-off is that the sentence is a verbless fragment, so the leading position is spent on topic enumeration rather than on stating what the tool does.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is minimally serviceable: it tells the agent what body of guidance is available. It omits any sense of result size, format, or how to narrow down if the full set is large, leaving the agent to discover that at call time.

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%, and the schema itself documents both the topic and version parameters with examples and defaults. The description's topic enumeration ('links', 'headings') loosely echoes valid topic values but adds no formatting or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as the design kit's rule set and enumerates the concrete topics it covers (class names, AP style, headings, links, messages, colors, images, accessibility). That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_component, get_install, check_html and search_components, though it is a noun phrase with no verb stating that it returns these rules.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus a sibling such as get_component or check_html, and no stated preconditions. The only usage hint ('omit for all of them') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent gets no routing help from the text.

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