mock_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output or side effects occur, or any required permissions or preconditions beyond the schema's reindex notice. This is a significant gap for a tool that detects issues.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. 'Detect mock/patch mismatches after signature changes' immediately states the core purpose, and 'Pairs rename_symbol' adds workflow context with minimal verbosity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether it modifies anything, or the exact scope of 'mock/patch mismatches.' The 'Pairs rename_symbol' hint is useful, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to safely and effectively invoke the 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the parameters are clearly documented (e.g., 'REQUIRED: project root (abs). reindex first if new.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 function: 'Detect mock/patch mismatches after signature changes.' This uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('mock/patch mismatches'), and the phrase 'after signature changes' connects it to a specific workflow, distinguishing it from siblings like rename_symbol.

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 usage context: 'after signature changes' and 'Pairs rename_symbol' explicitly links it to a workflow step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling context makes the pairing clear.

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