sync_status

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

The description details the conditional mutability (drain parameter) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which is useful. It doesn't elaborate on the exact effects of draining (e.g., number of rows, blocking), but given the simple nature of the tool and non-destructive hint, 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?

The description is extremely concise at 20 words in two sentences. The first sentence focuses on the primary action, and the second adds the critical condition. No extraneous information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (report and optional drain). It implicitly describes the output scope but could benefit from a brief note on what fields the report includes. Still, it is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 covers the single parameter 'drain' with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining 'Optionally drain one batch now' and linking it to the overall read-only condition, providing context beyond the schema.

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 reports cloud sync configuration and local sync queue depth, with an optional drain action. The verb 'report' and specific resources make the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools in different domains.

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 provides explicit guidance on when the tool is read-only versus mutable ('Read-only unless drain=true'), which helps the agent decide usage. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., licence_status, tv_status) is sufficiently distinct that no further guidance is needed.

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