wiki_sync_index

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

The description discloses that the tool is automatic on certain events and explains the manual invocation scenario, but it does not mention any potential side effects such as whether it overwrites in-memory changes or if it is safe for concurrent calls. Since there are no annotations, this lack of explicit safety details leaves some behavioral transparency gap.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the action and the second providing the context for manual use. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant words.

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 simple index refresh tool, the description fully covers its purpose, automatic behavior, and manual invocation scenario. It also includes examples of external changes (Obsidian edits, git pull) that warrant a manual call, making the tool's context clear without needing to explain return values since an output schema is present.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not introduce any ambiguity about expected inputs.

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's purpose as refreshing the wiki index database from disk, using the specific verb 'refresh' and identifying the resource. It also provides a condition for manual invocation (files changed outside Synapse), which helps distinguish its intended use from other tools that might modify the index.

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 explicitly states that the tool runs automatically on server start and after write operations, and advises calling it manually only when files were changed outside Synapse (e.g., Obsidian edits, git pull). This gives clear guidance on when to use it versus relying on automatic triggers, and hints that it should not be called manually for normal Synapse updates.

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