project_conventions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about the output content (explicit facts and derived candidates), but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, filtering behavior, or performance characteristics.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists examples. It is concise but could be slightly clearer by reducing jargon (e.g., 'Reef 9 convention view').

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, but the description does not cover parameter usage or output structure. While the output schema provides return value details, the description should clarify how parameters affect results. Overall, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no information about the 5 parameters. While parameter names (projectId, kind, status, limit) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to explain how they influence the tool's behavior or output.

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: surfacing explicit convention facts plus derived candidates, with concrete examples like auth guards and route patterns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on conventions specifically.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over other tools like reef_inspect or reef_instructions, nor does it specify any conditions or exclusions.

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