run_synthesis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It provides no information about side effects, typical runtime, failure conditions, or safety profile. The agent cannot infer whether this is a safe read, destructive write, or long-running process.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing necessary completeness. While it earns its place by stating the core action, it does not provide enough value for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.

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 tool has no output schema and minimal description. Critical context is missing: whether synthesis produces output files, how to check results, what errors can occur, or that it may take significant time. The description is insufficient for an agent to use this tool reliably.

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?

Although the description adds no parameter information, the input schema already fully describes both parameters (jobs and timeout) with defaults and usage hints. Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run synthesis on the current project' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It adds minimal context (the implicit 'current project'), but fails to specify what synthesis accomplishes or how it differs from sibling tools like 'run_implementation'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., after opening a project, before implementation), nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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