x5_get_sync_status

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 context about which aspects the tool reports (network, freshness, last sync results) but does not disclose output format or additional behaviors. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short, efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates the status dimensions, the second gives the usage directive. Every word contributes value.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool, the description gives the essential content (what the status spans) and when to use it. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on return shape could help, but the description provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage with an empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for no-parameter tools; there are no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not mislead.

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 identifies the resource (sync status) and enumerates what it covers: history coverage, network, freshness, and results of last synchronizations. It is distinguishable from sibling x5_sync_history, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. A specific verb is absent but supplied by the tool name 'get'.

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 explicitly instructs to check before analytics ('Проверять перед аналитикой'), giving clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when-not-to-use or point to alternatives like x5_sync_history, 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.