sync_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it checks commits and can re-download/verify with force=true, but it does not state side effects (e.g., local file modifications, network access), prerequisites, or what happens when force=false. This is minimal behavioral 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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it is somewhat terse in Korean. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 is incomplete for a sync tool. It lacks context about the actual sync operation, side effects, and what 'check' leads to. Given that there is an output schema, return values are not needed, but behavioral context is under-specified for a tool that likely downloads and modifies local files.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for the 'force' parameter: 'True이면 같은 commit이어도 다시 다운로드하고 검증' explains the re-download and verify behavior. It adds value beyond the schema's boolean type, though it does not explicitly state the default behavior when force=false.

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 says it checks the latest commit of 'Toss 공식 예제 main', but the tool name is 'sync_examples', implying synchronization. The verb '확인' (check) does not fully convey the sync action, and the description does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'sync_sources'. The force argument hints at downloading/verifying, but the core purpose remains somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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