Get conventions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool returns conventions and optionally filters by topic, which is useful. However, it does not disclose default behavior (e.g., returns all topics when no filter is provided) or any other behavioral details such as output format or handling of empty results. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with a plain-language question and then a crisp summary of the return value and optional filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or ambiguous filler.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it communicates the core purpose, the topics covered, and the optional filtering behavior. It lacks sibling differentiation and usage guidance, but those gaps are partially acceptable given the tool's low complexity and the output schema's presence.

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 single 'topic' parameter is fully enumerated in the schema with an enum, and the description lists the same five topics. The phrase 'optionally filtered to one topic' clarifies that the parameter is optional and controls filtering, adding modest meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the semantics of each topic choice, but those are largely self-explanatory.

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 naming, spacing, color, accessibility, or deprecation conventions' with an optional topic filter. The verb 'Returns' plus the resource 'conventions' makes the purpose specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'whats_deprecated', which may overlap on the deprecation topic.

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 gives context about what the tool does and the optional filter, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whats_deprecated' or 'list_tokens'. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the topic list.

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