get_conventions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the output is text identical to a prompt's content, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format details, size, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the behavioral profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and the distinguishing context. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only text-getter with annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned and why the tool exists. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the content always matches the prompt, implying updates to the prompt affect this output, but that is a minor nuance.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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?

States a specific resource (team's Playwright test-writing conventions) delivered as text, with the verb implicit in 'get'. It also relates the tool to the write_playwright_test prompt, but does not differentiate it from the sibling tools listed, which center on semantic DOM extraction and session management.

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 clearly states the condition for use: clients that do not surface MCP prompts. This is a specific, actionable when-to-use cue. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool (e.g., if prompts are available, use write_playwright_test instead), so it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives and exclusions.

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