Show the user's app-sync integrations (Notion, Google Sheets, Zotero): whether each is connected/enabled, synced vs pending counts, and any errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it reports errors and counts, but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as whether it may be slow due to polling external services, or what happens when no integrations are configured. It adds some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral context.
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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core function and then lists the specific integrations and data points. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word contributes meaning.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description clearly enumerates what the tool returns (connected/enabled state, counts, errors) and for which integrations. It is reasonably complete for a simple read-only status tool. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., JSON shape), but given the explicit enumeration, an agent can infer the expected output adequately.
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, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description has nothing to add, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not mention any configuration options because none exist.
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 specifies the resource (app-sync integrations) and enumerates the exact integrations covered (Notion, Google Sheets, Zotero). It also states precisely what information is returned: connection status, synced vs pending counts, and errors. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from more generic status tools.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are closely related siblings like get_connection_status and get_bookmark_sync_status, but the description does not differentiate or provide conditional selection criteria. An agent is left to infer the right context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even among similar ones (e.g., archive_bookmarks vs archive_bookmarks_by_filter, get_bookmark vs get_library_overview). Descriptions are detailed and explicitly differentiate between overlapping actions, leaving no ambiguity.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_bookmarks, create_smart_view, update_digest_preference), but a few deviations exist: 'recall', 'remember', 'forget' omit objects, 'get_me' uses a pronoun, and 'setup_vector_store' uses 'setup' instead of 'set'. These are minor and do not hinder readability.
At 53 tools, this far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and even the 25+ threshold, making it an extreme count. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number overwhelms an agent's discovery and selection process, fitting the rubric's definition of an extreme mismatch.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for bookmarks (fetch, list, get, search, archive, tag), labels (add, remove, delete, list), smart views (create, update, delete, list), digests (compose, send, list, get, preferences), exports, sync status, and user preferences. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the stated purpose.
