moodle_sync_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling behavior (progress while running) and the final return contents (summary, files per course, errors), which is useful. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, and whether the call blocks, which are important for a status tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then describes the return shape. It is dense but has no wasted words. Slightly run-on, but acceptable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably by describing the progress object and final result contents including errors. It doesn't cover authentication or polling frequency, but for a zero-parameter status endpoint it is mostly complete.

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 the baseline is 4. No parameter details are needed, and the description correctly does not introduce any.

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 purpose: reporting progress and final result of a sync started by moodle_sync without a course. It names the sibling that creates the sync and distinguishes itself as the status endpoint. Lacks explicit differentiation from moodle_status, but clearly differentiates from moodle_sync.

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?

Gives a clear condition for when to use it: after starting a sync via moodle_sync without a course. Doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or what to use if a course was specified, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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