Show a directory's sync state

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

The read-only nature is already captured by the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description repeats it. The description adds useful output behavior (reports linked secret and variable names), but it does not mention edge cases, prerequisites, or what happens when a directory is not linked. It adds some context beyond the annotation but leaves gaps.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core capability and includes only necessary detail. No filler or redundancy; the sentence is immediately informative.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the kind of information returned. It covers the main scenarios (linked vs. not linked, variable names) but does not mention failure modes or filesystem assumptions. Given the tool's simplicity, the definition is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') and clearly identifies the resource (a directory's sync state) and the three facts it returns: whether it is linked, which secret, and which variable names are in the .env. It is distinct from generic 'status' tools even though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as oneguard_status or oneguard_env_sync. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets no help choosing between tools.

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