syncthing_folder_completion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond them — no indication of whether results are per-device, whether they reflect live state, or what the completion percentage refers to.

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 short but only because it is under-specified rather than efficient; two words that duplicate the tool name carry no information. Brevity here is a symptom, not a virtue.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond the generic read-only hints, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. Nothing about scope, defaults, or return shape is conveyed.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description supplies none of the missing meaning for folder, device, fields, or instance. In particular, the relationship between the required 'folder' and optional 'device' scope is left entirely undefined.

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?

"Folder completion" merely restates the tool name and names a resource without stating what operation it performs or what it returns. It never says whether this reports sync completion status, triggers completion, or configures completion, so an agent cannot tell what calling it actually does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as syncthing_folder_status or syncthing_folder_statistics, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Nothing in the description helps an agent route here over the many other folder-related tools.

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