Get Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well: it explains the at-most-5 high-confidence match cap without repo_id, mentions meta.unscoped_retrieval, details what each action gathers or produces, and discloses token compression behavior. A small gap is that it never explicitly states that this is a read-only operation and never mutates code, though calling it 'retrieves' strongly implies it.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with high-level purpose and actions, but it repeats key points: 'Pass the exact repo_id...' appears multiple times, and 'action edit' is emphasized twice. The 'Usage (short)' vs 'Usage (long)' sections also add redundancy. Overall, it is longer than necessary, but the information is organized and relevant.

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 the complexity of this tool (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers all four actions, tells the agent how to obtain a repo_id, explains behavior without repo_id, and describes what the edit action should gather. It does not fully describe the overall return value structure, but the action-level descriptions and the schema help bridge most of that gap.

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 input schema has full 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains why action 'edit' is the essential pre-edit step, clarifies the impact of omitted repo_id, and breaks down what each high-level action does (e.g., find's multi-mode search, explain's layered explanation, and onboard's reading order). This is extra practical guidance, not just schema repetition.

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's purpose: retrieving codebase context for understanding, editing, explaining, and onboarding. It names specific actions ('find', 'edit', 'explain', 'onboard') and directly distinguishes itself from alternatives like 'multi-file grep_search chains, sequential view_file reads' and manual code comprehension.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, and how to handle edge cases. It says to pass the exact repo_id, to call synapse_manage_repos with action 'list' when repo_id is unknown, and that action 'edit' is required before modifying code. It also includes 'Instead of these alternatives' guidance, which helps an agent route to the right tool.

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