sync_all_directories

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Force sync from API,' implying a side effect of overwriting or updating directories, but does not describe what 'force' means (e.g., ignoring incremental sync, potential data loss, or locking behavior).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise and appropriate for a no-parameter tool, though the phrase 'basic directories' could have been expanded without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and the operational nature of this tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'basic directories' are, what 'Force' does in practice (e.g., cache invalidation or blocking), or the shape of the output, despite having an output schema.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 action (sync) and scope (all basic directories), distinguishing it from the sibling 'sync_directory' via the 'all' modifier. However, the term 'basic directories' is domain-specific and not defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool against alternatives like sync_directory or configure_cache. The word 'Force' implies immediate manual action, but no context is given about typical usage scenarios or exclusions.

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