ssh_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses mutation of the destination, destructive nature of delete true, dryRun preview, default compression, sshpass requirement, blocking on readonly/restricted servers, and Windows path conversion behavior. This far exceeds minimal disclosure.

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 a dense paragraph of about 250 words that front-loads the core purpose and packs each sentence with essential operational details. While not terse, every sentence contributes unique value and no information is redundant. It is appropriately sized for a complex 10-parameter tool, though a bulleted structure could improve scannability.

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 the key operational aspects: direction semantics, destructive behavior, dryRun, defaults, Windows support, auth requirement, and server restrictions. The only missing piece is the return/output format, which is not described and there is no output schema. However, for an action tool this is largely adequate, and all important edge cases are addressed.

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%, but the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: the requirement that one side be local and the other remote, the no-prefix default to push, the destructive meaning of delete, and Windows path conversion details for source/destination. This goes well beyond baseline.

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 opens with 'Synchronizes files or directories between local and remote using rsync over SSH on the named server,' which clearly states the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_upload/ssh_download by emphasizing bidirectional synchronization with prefix-based direction control. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explains the prefix rules for source and destination and the default push behavior, giving clear context for operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ssh_upload/ssh_download for one-way transfers, nor state when to prefer this tool. Thus, it meets 'clear context, no exclusions' but not explicit alternative guidance.

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