sync_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral value by explaining the 'no local copy to compare' concept and the field-state reporting format. It doesn't mention error behavior, permission requirements, or pagination, but for a read-only diff tool the annotations carry much of the burden.

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 sentences, both information-dense. The first sentence establishes the comparison semantics and output states; the second explains the sys_updated_on return value and its downstream use. Zero filler words.

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 comparison tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it compares, default comparison source, output state enum, and how the result informs a sibling tool. Slightly short on the return structure detail beyond field states and sys_updated_on, but adequate for the tool's complexity.

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% for all three parameters, providing descriptions for table, sys_id, and fields. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'fields' parameter semantics (defaults to files under NOWAIKIT_SYNC_DIR) and clarifying that sys_id accepts a name as an alternative. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('compare'), a specific resource ('artifact's current instance content'), and a precise scope ('field-by-field'). It also names the output states (unchanged | changed | not_local), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like push_artifact and pull_artifact. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 indicates this is a read-only comparison used as a precursor to push_artifact, explicitly noting it returns data 'to feed into push_artifact's conflict check'. This gives useful context, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives.

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