cloudsync_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and scope profile. The description adds real value by disclosing the breadth of data returned (multi-provider, per-connection, quota, ETA), but says nothing about cost, latency, refresh cadence, or authentication requirements.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads the resource and the data inventory, the second front-loads the use case. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value formatting need not be restated, and the description correctly focuses on scope plus the decision cue for when to call it. Only the undocumented estimate_rate flag keeps it from being fully complete for an agent with no prior context.

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 0% and the single parameter estimate_rate (boolean, default true) is never explained. The description's mention of "throughput and ETA" hints at what rate estimation affects, but it does not define the flag or how setting it false changes the response. With only one optional parameter the practical impact is limited.

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?

States a specific resource (Cloud Sync overview) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: per-connection status, files left, quota, tasks, throughput and ETA. The provider list (Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, S3) further scopes it and separates it from siblings like cloudsync_activity and cloudsync_logs, which are narrower log/activity views.

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?

"Start here for 'is the sync done / how long left'" is an explicit entry-point recommendation that tells the agent which question this tool answers and implies it precedes the detail-oriented siblings. It falls short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition, so it stops at clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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