sync_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'auto-detect finished work' but does not disclose whether it modifies the Todo plan (e.g., auto-completing tasks) or only reports findings. The name 'sync' implies potential writes, creating ambiguity about side effects, which is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs multiple specifics (scan targets, comparison, purpose) without unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the description lacks crucial context about whether the tool mutates the plan and when to prefer it over sibling tools like verify_work or complete_task. Given its potentially side-effecting nature, this ambiguity makes the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 one optional path parameter with default '.', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the path parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Scan') and resource ('physical workspace'), enumerates concrete signals (Git diff, new files, current branch, commits), and states the comparison against the Todo plan to auto-detect finished work. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling git_* commands and task management tools like complete_task.

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 provides a clear usage context: it is for auto-detecting finished work by scanning the workspace and comparing to the Todo plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context alone gives enough guidance for most cases.

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