sync_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds field-level status semantics and the sys_updated_on output's purpose, going beyond the annotation baseline with useful behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Local sync: compare...'. Every sentence adds meaning with no fluff or repetition.

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?

No output schema, but the description outlines return semantics (field statuses and sys_updated_on). The input schema is fully documented. It misses detailed formatting of the output, but for a compare tool this is sufficient.

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%, so parameter descriptions exist. The description adds value by explaining that 'fields' defaults to files under NOWAIKIT_SYNC_DIR, and clarifies the purpose of sys_updated_on, which is not in the schema.

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 does a field-by-field comparison between an artifact's instance content and local/edited content, with specific status outputs (unchanged, changed, not_local). It also connects to push_artifact's conflict check, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_instances.

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 implies usage context: it's a local sync comparison step that feeds into push_artifact's conflict check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and connection to push_artifact give clear practical guidance.

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