describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool reports both loaded state and cross-tool conventions, which is meaningful for a zero-argument tool, but it says nothing about return shape, whether it is a safe read, or how the 'conventions' are presented.

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 short sentence with no padding, and the 'what is loaded' clause is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the compression borders on cryptic rather than informative.

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 no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the burden is low, and the description names both things it reports. However, the vague wording ('the conventions every tool uses') gives an agent no concrete expectation of what the response actually contains, which is the one thing this description needed to nail down.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims in the description conflict with the empty schema.

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 gestures at the tool's content ('what is loaded', 'the conventions every tool uses') but never states a verb or a concrete resource, so it reads more like a topic label than a stated action. It is not a pure tautology of the name 'describe', but an agent gets only an abstract sense of what comes back and no differentiation from siblings like list_rigs or where.

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 statement of when to call this versus the other fifteen tools, nor any prerequisite or ordering hint (e.g. 'call first to orient'). The only implicit cue is that it surfaces conventions, from which an agent might infer it is an orientation call, but that is left entirely to inference.

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