sync_from_remote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior (pull data, skip existing local files) and prerequisites (config). It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting, but skipping existing files implies non-destructive behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Note) but is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence contributes value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter details, configuration, and examples. It lacks info on error handling or edge cases beyond 'failed_dates', but overall is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema only provides a default and type for 'days'. The description adds significant meaning by specifying valid values (0, 7, 30) and their effects, which is essential for correct usage.

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's purpose: pulling data from remote storage to local. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., search, aggregate) by focusing on data synchronization.

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 specifies the intended usage scenario (MCP Server) and provides configuration prerequisites. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, the context makes its unique role clear.

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