sync_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions detecting changes and synchronizing, which implies index updates, but it does not detail side effects, failure modes, or whether it is safe to run concurrently. The dry_run option is mentioned only in the schema, not in the description, so the description alone is incomplete for a mutation-like operation.

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 three concise sentences, with the main action front-loaded. It avoids redundant phrasing and conveys the core purpose, detection scope, and usage hint without fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what it detects, and when to use it. It does not elaborate on edge cases or internal behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and call it correctly. The lack of annotations is partially mitigated by the clear usage guidance.

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 100% for both parameters (dry_run and require_daemon), so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 verb ('Synchronize') and resource ('vault files with the index'), and explicitly lists the types of changes detected (new, modified, deleted). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reindex_vault (full reindex) and search tools, avoiding any ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after files changed while the server was stopped.' This gives clear context for the intended scenario, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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