get_sync_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals a non-obvious output flattening (fields at top level, not nested under 'daemonStatus') and mode-dependent return values. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover potential error cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides critical positional and mode-related nuances without fluff. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing example top-level fields and explaining mode-dependent behavior. It lacks full enumeration of all possible fields or error scenarios, but for a simple status tool it is sufficiently 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist; per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. It appropriately focuses on output behavior 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get the sync status and daemon info.' It also differentiates from siblings (archive query, schema, examples) by specifying the focus on daemon status. The mode-specific behavior (snapshot vs tutorial/live) adds precise scope.

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?

It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it provides contextual guidance by describing what happens in snapshot mode versus tutorial/live modes, helping the agent infer when to use it based on the desired mode. Sibling tools are clearly unrelated to sync status, so the intended use is implied.

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