rr_get_sync_status

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but with no annotations to confirm, the behavioral transparency is minimal. It does not clarify whether 'recent' means last N days or last N runs, nor does it mention any side effects or access requirements.

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 extremely short (4 words) and uses a noun phrase rather than a full sentence. While it wastes no words, it lacks structure and may be too terse to be helpful. A more descriptive sentence would improve clarity without adding much length.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the response contains, or how to interpret the results, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (connector_type, store_id, limit). An AI agent would have to infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Get recent sync run history' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves historical sync runs. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other rr_get_* tools, the subject 'sync run history' is distinct enough from alerts, forecast, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rr_trigger_sync for initiating a sync). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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