refresh

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavior: the call returns immediately while the sync takes about a minute, and it is rate-limited to once every few minutes. This meaningfully informs the agent about async behavior and throttling.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the async behavior, and the follow-up guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

With no parametersainer un output schema, the description provides all necessary operational context: what happens, when it returns, the rate limit, and how to verify completion via sync_status. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything, so there is nothing for the description to add. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is met.

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 action ('Ask the collector to sync from iCampus now'), identifies the target resource (iCampus), and distinguishes the operation from status-checking by pointing to sync_status. This is a specific verb+resource statement with no 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?

The description gives clear when-to-use context by describing the sync trigger and its asynchronous nature. It also tells the agent to check sync_status afterwards, which provides an explicit follow-up alternative. It does not state when not to use it, but the guidance is enough for correct invocation.

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