sync_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that reset preserves project tasks, analyzer configs, and whitelist entries. It explains the three modes (sync, cleanup, reset) and their effects. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond the described behavior.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and then provides key detail about preservation on reset.

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 lack of output schema and two parameters, the description covers the core behaviors and what is preserved. It could mention whether the tool is idempotent or if there are any performance implications, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the path parameter's form or expected values). Baseline 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 uses specific verbs (synchronize, cleanup, reset) and clearly identifies the resources (analysis-derived data, indexed functions, FlexSearch, cached audits, code maps, schema overlays). It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit or get_code_map_section by focusing on sync/reset 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?

The description tells what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (audit, get_code_map_section, etc.) and the clear mode descriptions implicitly guide usage. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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