Synapse

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context by specifying what statistics are returned, but doesn't disclose additional traits like performance characteristics, error conditions, or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get vault statistics') and lists the specific outputs. Every word adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the statistics returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could briefly mention the response format or data structure for better completeness.

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 input (none required). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are needed by not mentioning any. This aligns with the schema, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('vault statistics'), listing the exact types of statistics returned (file counts, folder structure, initialization status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vault_list' (which likely lists files) and 'vault_status' (which might check operational status), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 for retrieving statistical overviews of a vault, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vault_status' or 'synapse_status'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., whether the vault must be initialized) or exclusions, leaving usage inferred rather than clearly defined.

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