sync_file_changes

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

Describes that it 'returns lessons relevant to those files' and 'records the file changes in session history,' but doesn't disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input, output, and usage guidance. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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?

Explains what the tool returns (lessons) and records (session history), which is sufficient given no output schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the nature of 'lessons' or how session history is used, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the source for 'git_diff_stat' and instructions for 'changed_files,' making the schema documentation more actionable.

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,' and specifies the input (list of file paths) and outputs (lessons, recording). It distinctly positions the tool among many siblings as a post-commit synchronization.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call this after commits so the brain tracks what changed and why.' While it doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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