rms_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: the sync is incremental. It does not say that this mutates vault index state, whether it is safe or expensive to call repeatedly, whether it blocks, or what it returns, all of which an agent needs before invoking a state-changing operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its incremental nature, with no filler. The parenthetical CLI equivalence earns its place as a mental-model anchor, though it could have been spent on the reindex distinction instead.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is close to adequate but omits the mutation/return behavior and the sibling routing that would let an agent choose confidently. The scope is small enough that the gaps are tolerable rather than disqualifying.

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 parameter is optional, so the baseline is already met by the schema itself. The description does add a real usage nuance beyond the schema — preferring an explicit `project` in multi-root IDEs — but says nothing about what happens when the key is wrong or unknown.

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 and resource: "Incremental vault index sync," and ties it to the known CLI command `rms-memory sync`, which gives an agent a concrete mental model. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, rms_reindex (full rebuild vs. incremental), leaving that distinction implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus rms_reindex, rms_doctor, or rms_projects, and no mention of prerequisites or consequences of running it mid-edit. The only conditional guidance — "Prefer an explicit `project` when the IDE is multi-root" — is about parameter supply rather than tool selection.

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