Ask Synapse

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so well by disclosing routing through existing granular tools, preserving entitlement/readiness/validation/mutation-safety checks, automatic compression, clarification behaviour for ambiguous targets, and the incomplete-response protocol via completion_state, agent_instruction, and next_tool_calls. It does not explicitly mention side-effect potential or confirmation semantics, but the information is generally thorough.

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 clearly structured into an overview, replacement statement, and short/long usage guidance. It is a bit longer than necessary, with some repetition around the same 'Use first' and 'instead of alternatives' ideas, but every section earns its place given the tool's complexity and broad role.

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?

Given that the tool has 16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering the common and even advanced flow: scoping, exact identifier, mutation payload, feedback/identity, confirmation_token, compression, and next_tool_calls. It does not fully explain return shape, confirmation UI authority explicit cases, or when the agent should bypass the router, so I deduct a little for those gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 69%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema in the right places: it explains query, top-level repo_id/path vs. global aliases, where mutation payload must live, how deletion-safety targets should be supplied, and how to use returned route ids. However, certain parameters such as depth, limit, format, and preview_digest remain unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as the default Synapse entry point that routes natural-language objectives across a defined set of tasks (questions, deletion-safety, edits, reviews, debugging, test discovery, repo administration, capability discovery). It distinguishes the tool from the granular sibling tools by framing it as the intelligent router preferred over manual tool selection.

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 gives explicit, actionable guidance: use this first, prefer top-level repo_id and path, supply concrete identifiers in inputs, and for deleting queries provide chunk_id or a qualified symbol rather than vague prose. It stops short of presenting a clear when-not-to-use case or alternatives for bypassing the router, but the routing context is strong.

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