sync_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully reveals the tool's behavior: it writes to DuckDB, requires the ingest worker, fails fast on worker absence, and also handles inbox imports. This discloses failure modes and a concurrency constraint, which is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, an Args section, then two paragraphs of behavioral notes. Every sentence provides distinct information with no fluff.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and failure behavior comprehensively. No critical aspect is left undocumented.

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 schema only defines 'limit' with a default null, while the description explains it as 'Maximum activities to download' and clarifies the default is the configured batch size (25). This adds critical semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 opens with 'Pull new activities from Garmin right now', which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this sync tool from siblings like list_activities or get_activity_detail. The added mention of importing from data/inbox further expands the scope, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for on-demand synchronization ('right now') and states a prerequisite (ingest worker running), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. This clear context places it above mere implication but below explicit exclusion guidance.

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