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: it's a 'one-shot' operation that returns a comprehensive overview including suggested next actions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or detailed response structure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific return details and explicit usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 (comprehensive status overview), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the return data or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a tool with potentially complex output.

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 would be 4. The description reinforces this by stating it's a 'one-shot status overview' with no parameters needed, which aligns perfectly with the empty input 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'One-shot status overview' that returns 'configuration, file counts, recent activity, CLAUDE.md schema, and suggested next actions.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the initial diagnostic tool for new connections or 'what can you do?' questions, unlike query/ingest/configure tools that perform specific operations.

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: 'This is THE tool to call when a user first connects or asks "what can you do?"' It clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives by establishing it as the entry point for understanding vault state before using other tools for specific operations.

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