sync_from_remote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavior: pulls recent N days, skips dates already present locally, returns structured results, and requires specific configuration. It doesn't mention potential overwrites or side effects in detail, but covers the main behavior and prerequisites.

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 with clear sections (summary, use case, args, returns, examples, note). It is appropriately detailed without redundancy; every line adds useful information for invocation.

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?

The description is complete for a single-parameter tool: it explains purpose, parameter values, return structure, examples, and configuration requirements. It anticipates potential issues (missing config) and clarifies behavior (skip existing dates).

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'days' parameter with default value, meaning of specific values (0, 7, 30), and providing examples. This gives the agent all necessary information to choose the right parameter value.

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 action (sync/pull) and resource (remote storage to local) with a specific use case (MCP Server pulling cloud-stored crawler data). It distinguishes from siblings like get_storage_status (status check) and trigger_crawl (initiate crawl) by focusing on data transfer.

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 context for when to use the tool (when remote data is needed locally for analysis) and explains the typical scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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