get_active_syncs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists running syncs, without mentioning scope (e.g., per user or environment), side effects, permissions needed, or the meaning of the 'env' parameter. This lack of transparency limits agent understanding.

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 very brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it sacrifices important parameter information. It is concise but incomplete, earning a middle score.

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 the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description should explain the 'env' parameter and the return value structure. It does neither, leaving the description incomplete for effective tool usage.

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 input schema contains one parameter, 'env', with no description in the schema (0% coverage) and no mention in the tool description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about the parameter's purpose and usage.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'List all currently running sync jobs with connection names.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_jobs and get_job that have different scopes.

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 provides clear usage context by stating it is the 'Best tool to answer' specific questions about worker pool blocking or slow syncs. This implies when to use it but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it.

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