sync_init

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the critical safety behavior — it will not overwrite existing context — plus the redirect behavior to sync_load. It does not detail what files are created or what the tool returns, but the most decision-relevant behavioral trait is clearly stated.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose first, trigger conditions second, exclusion and alternative third. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information — when not to use the tool — is unambiguously stated.

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 tool with four optional, fully schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision factors: purpose, trigger phrases, exclusion criteria, and the no-overwrite safeguard. The only minor omission is expected return/output behavior, a small gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four optional parameters (summary, progress, auto_push, project_path) fully documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 and resource — 'Bootstrap Context Sync' — and scopes it to 'a project that has not been initialized yet.' It explicitly names the sibling sync_load as the destination for existing contexts, so an agent can distinguish the tools without inspecting their schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete trigger phrases ('/sync-init', 'init context', 'initialize sync', 'set up context sync for this repo') and an explicit exclusion: 'If context already exists, do not overwrite it; guide the user to /sync-load instead.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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