Indexer Control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses status caching with idle vs. active timing, trigger's re-index side effect, cheap vs. slower options, wait-for-idle behavior, direct SQLite lookup for repo-scoped status, and output compression for lower token usage.

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 structure is front-loaded and skimmable: action bullets, REPLACES, a short usage note, then detailed status output. It is slightly redundant because the later status-return block partially repeats and rephrases the earlier 'status' bullet, but the overall layout remains usable and organized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating status fields, unresolved-edge counts, top candidates, caching behavior, and readiness guidance. For a 9-parameter tool with three distinct actions and no annotations, the description is comprehensive enough to drive the apparently action selection and parameter choice without external documentation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that repo_id selects a direct SQLite lookup, include_profile trades speed for detail, and trigger accepts a file/directory path. This helps the agent map intentions to parameters more accurately.

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 opens with 'Controls and inspects the indexing pipeline and server health,' which is a specific verb and resource, then elaborates with three concrete actions: health, status, and trigger. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling content tools like synapse_search_codebase and synapse_modify_files, whose domains are code search and file editing rather than indexing pipeline control.

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 usage sequencing ('health' first), repo_id scoping guidance, and a REPLACES line directing use instead of manual health probing, process monitoring, and ad-hoc tool listing. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance against related sibling tools such as synapse_manage_repos, but the core usage context is still clear.

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