acc_naming_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains how projects add their own naming convention JSON files in ~/.acc-mcp/naming, that without config_id it lists conventions and the current default, and that with config_id it returns full convention details including code tables, status codes, and CDE structure. This goes well beyond the read-only hint, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then expands into relevant details about bundled presets, custom config file location, and return behavior. It is a bit lengthy for a tool with one optional parameter, but each sentence adds meaningful information, so it earns its length.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the default preset, custom config mechanism, file path, selection methods, and what returns when config_id is supplied. The output schema exists, so it need not describe return structure, and the description fully covers usage and behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the config_id parameter is already described as showing full detail. The description reinforces this by explaining 'With config_id, returns the full convention...' and additionally contextualizes how config_id is used in selecting the convention (via ACC_MCP_NAMING_CONFIG). This adds useful usage context beyond the schema's bare description.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'container-ID naming conventions', and additionally mentions returning the current default. It clearly distinguishes the tool's listing behavior from other ACC tools like acc_get_naming_standard by focusing on available conventions and optional config_id detail.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list conventions) and how to use the config_id parameter to get full details. It also describes how custom configs are added and selected via config_id or environment variable, which implies usage in a project setup context. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like acc_get_naming_standard.

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