sync_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningfully: it documents that 'finished: null' means the sync is still running, and that a 'token_expired'-prefixed error requires manual token renewal instead of a retry. This goes beyond what an agent could infer from the schema, though it could also mention auth expectations or side-effect-free guarantees.

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?

Two dense paragraphs with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds only the interpretive semantics that an agent actually needs. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter status query with an output schema present, the description covers the essential return-value interpretation and the critical error case. The only real gap is that it doesn't situate the check within the sync workflow, e.g., by saying to consult this before deciding to retry or trigger a sync.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds nothing here; the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies.

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 clearly that the tool reports the state of the most recent sync ('running or finished'), which adds specificity beyond the bare name. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'sync' tool, though the read-vs-trigger distinction is fairly inferable.

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?

Provides actionable guidance on interpreting results and handling the 'token_expired' error ('report the command rather than retrying'). But it never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as 'sync' or 'history' — the selection context is left implicit, and the guidance is about reacting to output rather than choosing the tool.

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