list_sync_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what a sync run is (applying migrations, deploying edge functions, rebuilding frontend), which helps the agent understand the domain. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, but for a list operation with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List sync run history'), followed by a useful definition of what a sync run is. No wasted 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description explains the domain concept (sync run) and the scope (history for a connected project). It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple list-by-project tool with one parameter and an output schema, this is nearly 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 coverage is 100% — the single parameter 'id' is described as 'Connected project ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond that, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists sync run history for a connected project, and explains what a sync run represents. It distinguishes itself from related tools like get_sync_run (single run) and retry_sync_run (action on a run) by focusing on history listing.

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 this is for viewing history of sync runs for a connected project, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the phrase 'history' make the use case clear enough.

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