sync_files

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral details. It explains the sync mechanism (rsync), the two parameter modes, and dry_run. However, it does not specify sync direction (bidirectional or one-way), error handling, or whether directories are created, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, starting with a clear purpose statement, then using bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the two usage modes and dry_run. Given that an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, it could mention error conditions, directory creation, or file pattern handling for a more complete picture.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed semantics for each parameter, including defaults (profile_name defaults to current profile), the alternative between mount_name and path pair, and the effect of dry_run. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 syncs files between local machine and remote SLURM cluster using rsync. It distinguishes between two usage modes (mount point vs explicit paths) and is unique among sibling tools that focus on job/workflow management.

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 description explains when to use profile_name+mount_name versus local_path+remote_path, and mentions dry_run for testing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the context makes it clear.

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