detect_project_conventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that indexing is not required and that a formatted report is returned, but it omits whether the operation reads files, whether it has side effects, permission requirements, and performance characteristics.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the detection scope first, then the no-indexing requirement, then the return and memory-saving behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or padding.

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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers detection scope and the no-indexing constraint, though it could be more complete by clarifying its relationship to related convention and tech-stack tools.

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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score for no parameters applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('auto-detects') and resource ('project conventions') and enumerates the convention categories detected. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as extract_tech_stack or analyze_project_structure.

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 implies usage by stating it 'Does NOT require indexing' and that results can be saved to memory, which gives some context. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_tech_stack, get_project_overview, or save_conventions_to_memory.

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