sync_idle_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the scanning, filtering, adding, and return summary, but lacks details on error handling, side effects beyond the list addition, or prerequisites such as directory existence.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core action first, followed by usage scenarios and duplicate handling, and a clear return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with a described output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, usage contexts, and return values. It could mention edge cases like missing directories or failure states, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema needs no elaboration. The description adds meaningful context about the dedup logic and the output fields, which aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 the tool's function: scanning an idle map directory and adding .vpk files not in a dedup list to that list. It uses specific verbs (scan, add) and identifies the resource (.vpk files, dedup list), making it distinct from siblings like install_campaign.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: manual cleanup of the idle directory and automatic invocation after install_campaign. It also clarifies that duplicates are skipped, providing clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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