Re-syncs the job-hunting knowledge base from sources recorded at initialization for a specified campaign, so campaign data stays up to date.
Re-sync the knowledge base from sources recorded at init
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Re-sync' implies a mutation that could overwrite or disturb the existing knowledge base, but the description never says what gets replaced, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions/failed-init state it requires, or how long it runs.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true 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?
For a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the effect on existing data, the init dependency, or the outcome. An agent could invoke it correctly but cannot predict consequences.
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 single 'campaign' parameter is documented with an example ('default') in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('re-sync') and resource ('the knowledge base') and scopes it to sources recorded at init, which distinguishes it from the sibling kb_add (additive) reasonably well. However, 're-sync' is left undefined, so the agent must infer what the operation actually changes.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the obvious alternative kb_add. The phrase 'recorded at init' implies a dependency on init but never states it as a condition for calling this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.