sync_start

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 discloses side effects (index updates/removals), non-blocking execution, job retention, and process-exit loss. It also clarifies the behavior regarding visual profiles and STORE_IMAGES, ensuring the agent understands the tool's operational nuances.

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 overly verbose and repetitive. Phrases like 'visual profile' and 'only one job is kept' are repeated, and the whole text could be condensed to a few sentences without losing meaning. The single-paragraph structure lacks scannable clarity, and the redundancy detracts from conciseness.

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?

The description covers the main operational aspects: return value, polling mechanism, job limitations, and process-exit behavior. It is slightly incomplete regarding error cases or permission requirements, but given the moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, it provides sufficient context for 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 schema description for 'path' is already highly detailed, covering optionality, file/directory semantics, baseDirs, and omission behavior. The tool description repeats this verbatim without adding new semantic information, so the value beyond the schema is minimal, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reconcile the index with the files on disk: ingest new and changed files, leave unchanged files alone, and remove index entries for files that are gone.' It also specifies the non-blocking return of a jobId, making the tool's primary function unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly mentions alternatives and complementary tools: 'use the CLI (mcp-local-rag sync --visual) to set one, or ingest_file to replace the file' and 'poll sync_status with that jobId'. Also clarifies scope behavior and omission of path to sync all base directories, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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