Sync status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'lists sync status' by detailing that it reports the sync folder location, compares local vs. remote copy timestamps, and includes a reason in answers, allowing distinctions like 'no baseline yet' vs 'up to date'.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds essential information: scope (vaults with folder sync), details (folder path, newer copy), and answer characteristics (include reason). No wasted 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough. It defines what is listed, what is excluded, and what kind of answers to expect. It does not explain the exact return format, but given the simplicity, this is not a critical gap.

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 description has no parameter details to add. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource: vaults using Enpass folder sync. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_vaults by stating that vaults without folder sync are not listed, making its purpose distinct.

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 clearly indicates the tool's scope (folder sync status) and notes that vaults without folder sync are not included, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as list_vaults for all vaults, so it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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