Show Project Sync Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: it defines the comparison baseline (last pull/push) and enumerates the result kinds (added/modified/removed/remote_new), which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core comparison concept in sentence one, then adds usage and returns in labeled sections. The Args block is mildly redundant given the schema, but the structure is scannable and every other 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so adequately (a list of changes with kind tags). Combined with the stated read-only, non-mutating behavior and the comparison baseline, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents projectId as 'The Litewrite project id'. The description restates it ('projectId (string, required)') without adding format or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — comparing the local mirror against Litewrite — with a concrete analogy ('git-status style') and a scope qualifier ('without changing anything'). This distinguishes it immediately from litewrite_pull and litewrite_push, which actually move data.

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?

Gives a clear decision context: 'Use it before deciding whether to push local changes or pull remote ones,' which implicitly routes to the push/pull siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name those siblings by name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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