Synapse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the 7-step workflow, mentioning that it creates/updates multiple pages, adds wikilinks, and updates index/log. This provides operational transparency about what the tool actually does.

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 perfectly structured with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a numbered list of specific steps. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7-step workflow) and lack of output schema, the description provides substantial operational context about the processing steps and references external conventions (CLAUDE.md). However, it doesn't describe the format or location of generated outputs (pages, index, log) or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter (sourcePath), the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Process a source file into the knowledge base') and distinguishes it from siblings by detailing the multi-step ingestion workflow (reading, generating pages, adding wikilinks, updating index/log). It goes beyond a simple 'ingest' verb to explain what processing entails.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (processing source files into organized knowledge base pages with wikilinks) and references the CLAUDE.md schema for conventions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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