Folder Conventions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing that conventions accumulate down the tree, are returned root-first with most specific last, load from a default '_conventions.md', and read directly from disk even while the search index is building. This is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 a one-sentence purpose and then layers in behavior, usage, and disk-read rationale. Each paragraph earns its place, though the example convention text is slightly verbose and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 the output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, how results are ordered, and why it works during index building. It is nearly complete, but it does not explicitly address what happens when no convention file exists for a given path, leaving a minor edge case to the output schema or agent inference.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including path resolution to parent folder and the empty-string discovery mode. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: "Get the user's authoring conventions that apply to a note or folder." It also gives a concrete example of what conventions contain, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from generic read or list operations.

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?

Clear usage guidance is provided: "Call this before creating, restructuring, or linking notes so the result follows the vault owner's rules." It also mentions that write/edit tools echo conventions for post-write checks, giving useful contextual boundaries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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