copilot_sync

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: state is mutated per call (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with 'Import'), each call is bounded to one page, and repeated calls resume rather than duplicate — reinforcing the idempotency hint. It stops short of describing rate limits, auth requirements, or what a coverage warning looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the safety exclusion immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials of invocation, but terms like 'bounded provider page' and 'coverage warnings' are undefined and the agent is given no signal for knowing when the page sequence is finished. With no output schema to lean on, more detail on what comes back was warranted.

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 per the baseline there is no per-parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly adds nothing parameter-related and spends its words on the call/repeat protocol instead.

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 (Import) and resource (one bounded provider page), which is a recognizable paginated-fetch pattern. It also explicitly excludes message-sending, separating it from dm_send, but it never names its closest siblings such as copilot_get_status or copilot_get_activity.

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?

'Repeat deliberately to resume' and 'inspect coverage warnings' imply a loop-until-done protocol, and 'Does not send messages' rules out one misuse. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over copilot_get_activity or how to decide a run is complete.

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