get_conventions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns' without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or rate limits. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary; there is no redundant or filler content. It achieves maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain what a 'Convention entity' looks like or the return format (e.g., list, object, pagination). The current description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior, especially given the sibling tools suggest a memory graph context.

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 100%, with the 'domain' parameter already described as 'Optional keyword to filter conventions (e.g. 'Notion', 'Linear', 'API')'. The description adds only a paraphrase ('optionally filtered by domain keyword'), offering no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 returns 'Convention entities from the memory graph', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'recall' (generic memory retrieval) or 'get_identity' 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?

The description mentions optional filtering by domain keyword, giving a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'recall' or when not to use it (e.g., if no conventions exist). Guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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