get_sync_status

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

The "Side effects: None (strictly read-only)" line largely restates readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, which annotations already declare. What it adds beyond the annotations is the set of state fields surfaced (agent_busy, queue_count, snapshot_version) and the operational timing hint for batch runs.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by labeled When to use / When NOT / Side effects blocks, easy to scan. The side-effects bullet is partly redundant with the annotations, a small amount of wasted text.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little more; the description supplies purpose, timing guidance, and the alternative tool. Return-value formatting can be delegated to the output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The named state fields describe returned data rather than inputs, which is harmless but not a schema contribution.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the current sync status") and scopes it to the Bridge Server, and the When NOT section names the sibling trigger_user_sync so the agent can differentiate without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (inspect agent_busy, queue_count, snapshot_version before batch operations) plus an explicit when-not-to-use routing to trigger_user_sync for applying changes. Nothing is left to inference.

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