sync_all_registrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: 'Returns immediately — the daemon runs the sync in the background.' However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is safe/idempotent, or what happens if the daemon is unavailable, which matters for an unannotated mutation-like operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the usage condition, and the second explains the critical async behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and clear trigger conditions, the description is nearly complete. It covers when to call and what to expect immediately, though it could slightly improve by explicitly noting that all tracked registrations are covered or how to check sync completion via a sibling like status.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything relevant. The description adds context about when invocation is appropriate, which is the only parameter-like information an agent needs. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters requiring explanation.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool and references 'the sync' run by the daemon, which combined with the tool name makes the purpose clear. It does not explicitly restate 'sync all registrations' as an operational definition, but the trigger conditions and background behavior remove ambiguity. It is distinguished from siblings by being the only sync-oriented operation among them.

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 triggers: after registering a new directory, or when tracked files changed outside quarry's own writes. It implicitly tells the agent not to use it after quarry's own writes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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