gdbx_sync_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose error handling, permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the address is invalid. It also does not mention whether the result is a single state or a list of deltas, or any pagination behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then mentions the optional filter. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to parse. A perfect 5 might include a brief note on return format, but conciseness alone is strong.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a map, a list, a JSON object), how errors are reported, or any preconditions. An agent would need to guess at the expected output and failure modes, making this incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'prefix' has a description). The tool description adds some meaning: 'address' maps to 'addr', and 'optionally filtered by key prefix' maps to 'prefix', echoing the schema. However, it does not clarify the format of 'addr' (e.g., DID, string format) nor the effect of the prefix beyond being a filter. It partially compensates for the missing schema description but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('merged CRDT state (deltas) for an address'), and adds an optional filter mechanism. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gdbx_did_resolve or gdbx_name_resolve, which serve different purposes. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over the sibling tools. The agent gets no context for tool selection beyond the operation itself.

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