sync_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that refreshing is usually automatic, that first sync may take several seconds (full thread download), and that it can clear stale fallbacks. It does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if it locks anything, but it covers the key behavioral traits.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: definition, when-not-to-use, when-to-use, performance caveat, and parameter guidance. Well-structured with an Args section; no filler.

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?

Despite the tool being simple (one param), the description fully covers purpose, usage conditions, performance, and parameter enrichment. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It is a complete, self-contained description.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: course_id is defined as 'The course ID' and instructs to use list_courses to find it, adding useful context beyond the bare schema. For a single self-named parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Force-refresh') and resource ('local search index for a course'), clearly distinguishing it from the auto-syncing behavior of search_index. It directly states the tool's function and scope.

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 explicitly says when NOT to call it ('You usually do NOT need to call this'), names the alternative (search_index auto-syncs), and gives concrete scenarios for direct use (external changes, stale-fallback after failure). This is exemplary guidance.

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