cloudsync_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'list' by explaining that 'state' reflects the last run's job status (SUCCESS/FAILED/RUNNING), is null until the task runs, and unlike replication tasks, cloud-sync tasks have no inherent state. The '[READ]' prefix also signals non-mutating behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, then gives behavioral nuance in a separate paragraph. The state clarification is necessary and earns its place, though the 'Args' line could be integrated more smoothly. Overall it is well-structured without redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential fields, the semantics of 'state', and the target argument. It does not describe the return structure, but that is not expected here. The explanation of the state quirk makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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 schema provides only the target parameter with a null default and no description, so the description's 'Args: target: TrueNAS target name from config' adds essential context about where the value comes from. It does not explicitly state that the parameter is optional or how omitting it behaves, but it compensates for the absent schema description.

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 opens with '[READ] List cloud-sync tasks' and specifies the resource and fields (description, direction, path, state). It clearly distinguishes this from replication_list by noting cloud-sync records carry no state of their own, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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 tool name and '[READ]' establish it as the list operation for cloud-sync tasks, and the contrast with replication provides implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over a sibling like 'replication_list' or give direct alternative names, so it stops short of a 5.

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