Sync Context

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: first call returns full snapshot, subsequent calls return deltas within token budget, and conflict recovery 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 concise and well-organized: a single-line purpose, then bulleted usage instructions, then parameter list. It avoids redundancy, though the parameter list repeats schema info.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage timing, behavioral modes (full vs delta), and error recovery. It lacks return format details but annotations and description provide sufficient context for an agent.

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 has 75% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds extra meaning like workflow_id from CLAUDE.md and cwd for git context. However, some parameters like depth only have enum values, and the description does not elaborate further.

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 synchronizes project context with the database, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cph_session_init' by explaining its delta-based update behavior and conflict recovery role.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call at start of every session and after each task, and to use on conflict errors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though siblings suggest other tools.

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