get_sync_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description supplements this with a status lifecycle (PENDING → IN_PROGRESS → COMPLETED/FAILED) and the PAUSED_FOR_REVIEW condition for destructive migrations. It also instructs the agent not to infer version fields, adding value beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: what the tool returns, how to use its output correctly, and the status flow. No filler or repetition; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only detail-fetching tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: the data available, the status lifecycle, and the PAUSED_FOR_REVIEW edge case. It could add a hint about parameter relationships, but the output schema and annotations cover the rest. Very close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves (e.g., where to find runId or projectId), so it stays at the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves details of a specific sync run, enumerating the specific data included (status, versions, changes, errors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sync_runs (list) and get_sync_run_jobs (jobs) without ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing details of a specific run) and includes a specific directive about using returned version fields when reviewing diffs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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