scene_sync

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 discloses that the tool fetches all scenes and updates the local backup, implying a read-and-write operation. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, performance implications (e.g., time to sync), or side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges backups). The description adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 zero waste: the first states the action and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, with every sentence earning its place by adding distinct value.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'updates local backup' entails (e.g., overwrite, merge, error handling) or the response format. For a tool that modifies data, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 specific action ('Sync local backup with Home Assistant') and resource ('scenes from HA'), distinguishing it from siblings like scene_list (which only lists) or scene_update (which updates individual scenes). It explicitly mentions fetching all scenes and updating the local backup to match, providing a precise verb+resource+scope combination.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful for ensuring backup is current before making changes.' This provides clear context for usage (pre-change backup synchronization) and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like scene_list (for viewing) or scene_update (for modifying individual scenes), though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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