knowledge_sync_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ingestion target (searchable documents) and the auto-selection fallback behavior, which is useful. However, for a write/mutation tool it omits whether re-ingestion duplicates or overwrites documents, permission requirements, and failure 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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the fallback behavior second. No filler, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 selection of the input source well, which is the main complexity. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the mutation's side effects (dedup/idempotency, what is returned, error cases) unaddressed, so it is only adequate for a 3-parameter write tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics: that directory is only meaningful when session_id is omitted and drives auto-picking. That interaction is not obvious from the individual property descriptions.

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 and resource: ingesting an opencode session's user inputs into the knowledge store as searchable documents. It distinguishes itself from generic ingest siblings by scoping to 'session user inputs', though it does not explicitly name those siblings (knowledge_ingest_text/file/dir).

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?

It clearly explains the two usage modes: pass a session id, or omit it and pass directory to auto-pick the most recent session. There is no explicit 'when-not' guidance or naming of alternative ingest tools, but the operational context is unambiguous.

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