Sync codebase changes via AST parsing and SHA-256 hashing to detect exact line and symbol changes, keeping the local memory index current without rescanning raw files.
Automatically sync codebase via AST parsing and SHA-256 hashing to detect exact line and symbol changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses how change detection works (AST + hashing) and what it produces (exact line and symbol deltas), but 'sync' implies writes into the memory store and the description never says what gets mutated, whether it is idempotent, or what it costs on a large codebase.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and mechanism, with no filler. Every clause (AST parsing, SHA-256, line and symbol changes) contributes distinct information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values are covered, and the zero-parameter surface is simple. However, with no annotations and an implied mutation, the description omits side effects, scope of the sync, and failure/cost behavior, leaving the agent short of what it needs for a write-shaped tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about inputs needs explaining, and the description correctly spends no words on them.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('sync codebase') and adds the mechanism (AST parsing, SHA-256 hashing) plus the outcome (detect line and symbol changes). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the memory_* siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no statement of when this should be invoked versus the sibling inspection/query tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'Automatically' even leaves ambiguous whether the agent should call it at all or whether it is triggered internally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.