sync_cvs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: only local manual copies are indexed (no cloud sync), unchanged files are skipped, and force=true overrides skipping. It doesn't describe failure modes or logging, but these are significant behavioral details.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, the force behavior follows logically, and the final sentence prevents a common misuse path (assuming cloud sync). Every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and a clear indexed resource, this is complete enough. It could mention what the output looks like (e.g., a list of indexed files), but the description covers action, scope, triggering condition, and caution. The sibling context confirms the tool's standalone nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sole parameter 'force' semantically: 'Unchanged files are skipped unless force=true.' This adds meaning beyond the raw boolean field, telling the agent when to set it.

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 the tool's specific verb+resource: 'Index CV files manually copied into the active profile's cv_dir.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_job or check_applied — it indexes CV files, not jobs or applications. It also explicitly disambiguates with 'There is no cloud sync,' clarifying it is not a sync operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: after manually copying CV files into cv_dir, or to force re-indexing with force=true. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list shows distinct tools and the description's focus on local files vs. jobs/applications implies the intended use case.

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