knowl_synthesize

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint:false, so the description carries the behavioural burden. It discloses determinism, evidence-backed nature, and the automatic-execution constraint, which adds value. However, it does not explain what 'refresh' entails (e.g., whether it overwrites existing understanding) or any side effects. This is moderate coverage.

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 sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by clear usage exclusions. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description adequately covers when to use, what it does, and key behavioural constraints. It could mention expected output or result format, but that is not critical for a synthesis operation where the agent likely just calls it. Overall it is complete enough.

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 schema description covers the single parameter fully (subject to synthesise, example, one scope per call). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (create or refresh) on a specific resource (evidence-backed project understanding). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly ruling out background tidy-up and session summarisation, so an agent can tell it apart from other knowl tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: only for scopes the user explicitly asked to synthesise, never as background tidy-up, never to summarise a session, and never runs automatically on normal writes. This is direct and unambiguous, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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