syncthing_get_folder_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and listing sync state, errors, and byte counts gives some sense of the response contents, but there is no disclosure of permissions, cost, or how the error data relates to syncthing_get_folder_errors.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the returned fields are stated immediately.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of return-value and safety information. It names the returned fields, which partly compensates, but leaves the boundary against syncthing_get_folder_errors unexplained.

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 100% with a single 'folder' parameter documented as 'Folder ID', so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, which is the baseline for full coverage.

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 detailed status of a specific folder') and enumerates the payload (sync state, errors, byte counts). It distinguishes itself from syncthing_get_status and syncthing_list_folders, though it does not clarify its overlap with syncthing_get_folder_errors.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With a sibling like syncthing_get_folder_errors that also surfaces errors, the agent gets no help deciding which to call.

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