vault_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs git pull, rescans files, and atomically rebuilds indices, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the provided details are substantive.

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 three sentences, purpose-first, with no wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the core function and key behavioral variants.

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?

The description covers core sync behavior for two vault types and mentions atomic index rebuild. With 2 optional params and no output schema, this is complete enough for the agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention error cases or response format implications.

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 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for vault_name and response_format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Synchronizes one or all vaults.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_search or vault_read_note, which are read/search operations, by describing a synchronization action.

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 provides context for when to use the tool by explaining different behavior for GitHub vaults (git pull) versus local vaults (rescan in-place). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but among the siblings only this tool syncs, so the usage context is clear.

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