sync_all_registrations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a critical asynchronous behavior: 'Returns immediately — the daemon runs the sync in the background.' It also states the operations included (ingest new/changed, remove deleted), though it omits failure and idempotency details.

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 concise sentences. The first states the tool's function, the second explains the asynchronous return behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-argument, fire-and-forget sync tool, the description covers the purpose, scope, and the key background execution behavior. The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, and sibling status tool covers follow-up queries.

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, so no additional parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 ('Sync'), identifies the resource ('all registered directories'), and clarifies the scope with 'ingest new/changed, remove deleted.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling per-directory tools like register_directory and deregister_directory.

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 implies batch use for all registered directories and clarifies its operations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as ingest or register_directory, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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