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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what gets scanned (e.g., contradictions, broken wikilinks) and that it returns a report with fix instructions, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Health-check the knowledge base'), followed by specific scanning targets and output details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (diagnostic scanning) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete: it explains the scanning targets and output. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the report format (e.g., structure, severity levels). It adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior but has a minor gap in output specifics.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's scanning scope and output, which adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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 with specific verbs ('health-check', 'scans') and resources ('knowledge base'), and lists concrete scanning targets like contradictions and orphan pages. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like synapse_query or synapse_status by focusing on diagnostic analysis rather than querying or status reporting.

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 usage context for knowledge base maintenance ('health-check'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like synapse_status (which might report status without detailed diagnostics) or vault_stats (which might provide metrics without issue detection). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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