graphex_conventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List applicable coding conventions' with no indication of the output format, whether it returns a list, or any side effects (none expected). It does not say what 'applicable' means or what constitutes a convention. This is minimal and not transparent beyond the action.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for a tool that takes no parameters. Every word earns its place.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what it does. However, it leaves open questions about the nature of the output (e.g., plain text vs. structured list) and what 'applicable' means in the current context. Given that there is no output schema or annotations, a bit more detail—such as 'returns a list of convention identifiers'—would improve completeness. Still, it is not severely lacking.

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 has 0 parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). According to the scoring guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('applicable coding conventions'). It is unambiguous and does not conflate with siblings like graphex_query (query) or graphex_glossary (glossary). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from them, though the resource itself is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the action without context such as 'use this when you need the list before proposing changes' or any exclusions. An agent would have to infer when it is applicable, which is a gap.

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