sync_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only, showing status information. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is needed, or if the data is purely local or requires network access. The description is adequate but lacks detail on potential side effects or dependencies.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose and provides a concrete usage hint. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is shown (coverage, time, errors) and when to use it. It could be more complete by specifying what tables are included or whether the output includes error details, but it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter info, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior. Baseline 4 is justified.

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 tool shows local data coverage, last sync time, and pending sync errors. It also provides a usage hint about queryable date ranges. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sync' (triggers sync) and 'gaps' (shows missing data), but could be more explicit about the tables covered.

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 explicitly says 'Use to see what date ranges are queryable,' which provides a specific use case. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the context of sibling tools (e.g., sync for triggering, get_activity for specific data) makes the usage relatively clear.

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