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 scanning process, the three configuration options presented to users, and the workflow (calling synapse_configure next). Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description appropriately focuses on operational behavior without contradiction.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, details the scanning and options in a bulleted list for clarity, and ends with the next step. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 (an onboarding entry point with scanning and user choices), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, the options, and the workflow. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format of the configuration options, leaving a minor gap. Annotations provide safety context, so this is adequate but not perfect.

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 schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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: 'Onboarding entry point for Synapse' that 'scans the vault to detect existing structure, conventions, and CLAUDE.md, then returns configuration options for the user to choose from.' It specifies the exact action (scanning and returning options) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like synapse_configure (which is called after this tool).

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 explicit usage guidance: it's the 'onboarding entry point' and states 'After the user chooses, call synapse_configure with their selection.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for initial setup) versus alternatives (synapse_configure for the next step), with no ambiguity.

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