Diagnose sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals what the tool inspects (iCloud Drive and the snapshot file state), but never states that this is a non-mutating read/diagnostic, nor what form the explanation takes. Safety profile and side-effect behavior are left unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what the tool does and how, the second states when to invoke it. Every clause earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description omits the return shape — an agent cannot tell whether it yields a diagnosis only, or a diagnosis plus remediation. What it does and when to use it are covered, but the result contract is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing a self-contained environment check.

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?

States a specific verb and outcome ("Explain why the Swizzler library is missing or not updating") plus the resources inspected (iCloud Drive, snapshot file). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, snapshot_status, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word "Explain".

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: "Use when recipes are missing or stale." That is clear context for invocation, but it names no alternatives or exclusions — e.g. when to prefer snapshot_status or recipe_history instead.

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