Synapse

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the multi-step process (reads index, identifies pages, returns content), mentions the need for post-processing synthesis, and specifies a required follow-up action (saving with vault_write). While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description provides operational details that help the agent understand workflow expectations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains the tool's function, and the second provides critical usage instruction. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and complete parameter documentation, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the research process and output expectations well, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about return format (e.g., structured content vs raw text).

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, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant semantic details about parameters beyond what's in the schema, though it implies the 'question' parameter drives the research process. This meets the baseline 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('research', 'reads', 'identifies', 'returns') and resources ('knowledge base', 'index', 'pages', 'content'). It distinguishes from siblings like vault_search by emphasizing research synthesis rather than just searching, and from vault_write by focusing on querying rather than writing.

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 ('research a question against the knowledge base') and explicitly mentions a follow-up action ('MUST save the synthesized answer... using vault_write'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like vault_search for simpler lookups.

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