sync_memory_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does partly meet it by disclosing the concrete mechanics: file scanning, frontmatter parsing, FTS5 index synchronization, and commit-SHA stamping. That reveals a mutating operation with real side effects on the search index. However, it omits whether the Markdown files themselves are modified, whether the operation is idempotent or safe to repeat, and what permissions or runtime cost are involved.

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?

A single densely packed sentence front-loaded with the maintenance label and then the operation sequence. Every clause (scan, parse, sync, stamp) contributes distinct information with 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks whether the memory files are written to, whether the operation must be run before recall_memory returns fresh results, and any failure behavior. The description is accurate but not sufficient for safely deciding when to trigger a mutating reindex.

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 single parameter force_rebuild has its destructive drop-and-rebuild semantics fully documented in the schema, whose coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 names a specific verb set and resource: scans .manthan/memory/, parses frontmatter, synchronizes the SQLite FTS5 index, and stamps the Git commit SHA. That tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on and what it leaves behind. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like recall_memory or commit_memory, keeping it at 4.

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 only usage signal is the 'Sidecar Maintenance' prefix, which implies this is a maintenance-time operation rather than part of normal query flow, but the description never says when to run it, whether it should follow memory edits, or why an agent would choose it over recall_memory or commit_memory. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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