explain_convention

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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears responsibility. It discloses grounding in indexed chunks and prerequisite, giving transparency on data source and workflow. Lacks error behavior details, but sufficient for a simple retrieval 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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words, clearly front-loading the core purpose and key constraint (grounded in indexed 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?

Covers main aspects: function, prerequisite, data source. Output schema likely fills gaps on return format. Could mention error if repo not indexed, but not essential given simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description must compensate but only implicitly conveys parameter meanings via context. Does not clarify input formats or provide examples, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description explicitly states tool answers questions about a repo's coding conventions, using specific verb-resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like index_repo (precondition) and review_file (file-level) by focusing on 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?

Includes clear precondition 'run index_repo first', guiding when to use. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like review_diff or review_file, but context implies usage.

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