sync_start

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: initial full sync, polling frequency, ignored files. It does not mention blocking behavior or resource implications, but is otherwise transparent.

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: one sentence for purpose, then bullet-pointed technical details and args. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity (sync tool with output schema), the description covers key aspects: initial sync, polling, ignores files, parameters, and return values. Could mention error handling or prerequisites, but is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters with types, defaults, and roles (local_dir absolute path, sandbox_dir destination, sandbox name). This adds essential meaning.

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 verb 'Start watching' and 'live-syncing', and specifies the resources: local host directory and sandbox. It distinguishes from siblings like sync_stop and upload/download by describing its live-syncing behavior.

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 provides clear context on usage (initial sync, polling every second) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It implies use for continuous syncing, which is adequate.

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