sync_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 'full' parameter behavior but omits whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., overwriting local data), or could be long-running. For a sync action, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter clarification is placed second. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 tool with only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter behavior. However, it omits potential side effects, return behavior, or error conditions. Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but could benefit from noting what happens after sync (e.g., confirmation, refreshed data availability).

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'full walks every semester, not just the current.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default and clarifies the semantic distinction. It's concise and functional, though it doesn't elaborate on edge cases or performance implications.

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 clear action ('Refresh from MyCourseVille') with a specific resource and purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling read-only tools (list_*, get_*) by being a synchronization operation, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'Refresh' and resource 'MyCourseVille' make the purpose 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 implies usage (use it to refresh data) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'whats_new' or list tools. It does provide usage guidance for the 'full' parameter (full walks every semester), but no exclusion conditions or scenarios where other tools would be preferred. This is adequate but not explicit.

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