sync_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains behavior: dry_run modes, conflict detection logic, handling of new/deleted files, and sync log entries. No contradictions.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, but some consolidation could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 tool complexity (5 params, 0% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers behavior, usage prerequisites, and dry_run workflow. No gaps with the output schema.

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 dry_run parameter in detail and mentions repo_path implicitly. Other parameters like vault_root are standard paths; the description adds value beyond the schema but stops short of explicitly documenting every parameter.

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 clearly states 'Detect and apply repo changes since the last ingest,' specifying the verb (sync) and resource (vault). It distinguishes from siblings like ingest_repo and rebuild_vault by focusing on incremental updates.

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 advises when to use ('after code changes') and recommends a dry_run first. It also notes the requirement for a git repository. Explicit alternatives are not named, but the context is clear.

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