sync_file_changes

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains that the tool returns lessons and records changes in session history, indicating a write operation. It doesn't detail side effects, permissions, or error conditions, but the basic behavior is adequately described.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, input/output, and usage timing. No wasted words, all information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: input format, return value, and side effect. It could mention the format of returned lessons or session history, but the agent likely understands from context.

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 description doesn't need to add much parameter detail. It does clarify that 'changed_files' should come from 'git diff --stat', which adds some context. However, this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Associate recent file changes with brain knowledge.' It specifies the action (pass a list of changed file paths), the return (lessons relevant to those files), and the side effect (recording in session history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brain_diff or brain_from_git by emphasizing the after-commit use case.

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 advises calling this tool 'after commits so the brain tracks what changed and why,' providing clear timing context. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would be helpful given the many sibling tools.

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