get_conventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the fallback behavior for unknown scopes, the file lookup pattern (fragments/<scope_class>.md), the return format (raw markdown), and the practical benefit (no CLAUDE.md pollution). It stops short of stating error behavior if the default fragment is also absent.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences covering purpose, behavior, and the call-site trigger with essentially no filler. Slightly dense with internal jargon (hermes-prime, CLAUDE-fragment) but every clause carries information.

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?

A single optional parameter with no output schema is well covered: the description explains what comes back (raw markdown fragment) and the fallback path. Absent output schema, the return-value explanation is adequate though brief.

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 schema already documents scope_class including the fallback rule, so the description's scoped-file detail largely restates it. It adds the concrete path convention but no examples of valid classes beyond what the schema gives.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the hermes-prime CLAUDE-fragment as raw markdown') and enumerates the content it contains (grounding triggers, tool map, rules). It never names the sibling list_scopes, so the boundary between the two is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Call once at session start to load conventions without polluting CLAUDE.md' gives a clear trigger and rationale for use. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to list_scopes as the way to discover valid scope_class values, which leaves a small inference gap.

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