notify_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the broadcast effect (all other agents notified), the synchronization trigger, and a critical side effect (auto-releasing locks). It does not mention failure modes or prerequisites beyond committing, but the key behaviors are covered.

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, 37 words, with the primary action stated first and the side effect in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior (notification) and a key side effect (lock release). It lacks explicit discussion of the optional 'message' parameter, but the schema covers that, and the prerequisite is mentioned.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional details about the 'files' or 'message' parameters. It only refers to 'these files' implicitly, so it relies entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 notifies other agents about updated files after committing and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it also auto-releases locks. The verb 'notify' and resource 'other agents' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear temporal context ('After committing changes') and explains the effect on other agents. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like release_files or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion conditions.

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