trawl_sync_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the operation is incremental and state-dependent on a prior index. However, it omits that this mutates the pool index, what happens on a first-ever sync with no prior index, or any cost/failure behavior.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the operative distinction (incremental vs. everything). 'Fast.' is mild marketing filler that earns little, but the rest is waste-free.

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?

It is a one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, so not much is needed, but the description leaves the relationship to trawl_reindex_pool, trawl_load_pool, and the ingest family unexplained, and says nothing about indexing side effects.

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 100% for the single pool_name parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no naming, format, or lookup guidance for the pool identifier, which leaves it at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource semantics: incremental reindex that only processes new/modified files. The scope contrast (incremental vs. full) is clear, but the description never names trawl_reindex_pool, the sibling it most needs to be distinguished from, so the agent must infer the difference from the tool names alone.

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?

'Only process new/modified files since last index' implies this is the cheap default path versus a full rebuild, and 'Fast.' reinforces that, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to trawl_reindex_pool for the full case.

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