sync_indexed_directories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: finds unique parent directories and re-indexes them. However, it lacks details on safety (e.g., is it idempotent?), performance, or side effects such as deleting old entries.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Auto-updates existing folders.' Every clause adds meaning with no wasted words.

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 mostly complete for a simple sync action with no parameters. However, it could mention that it is typically run after changes to indexed directories, and it does not describe the return value (though an output schema exists).

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter info (none needed), but baseline for 0 params is 4. No extra semantic value required.

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 auto-updates existing folders by re-indexing parent directories of currently indexed files to capture new or modified files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like index_directory (adds a directory) and list_indexed_directories (lists), showing specific verb+resource.

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?

The description implies when to use (to sync after changes to indexed directories), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does not compare to siblings like index_directory or remove_directory_from_index.

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