Project Graph 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 'recent' and 'graph-producing' context, but it does not disclose ordering, status filtering, pagination, or whether failed runs are included.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation: list, recent, graph-producing sync runs, project.

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 output schema and read-only annotations, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'sync runs' or provide guidance on which graph-related sibling tool to choose, so an unfamiliar agent may still hesitate.

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 80%, so the schema explains most parameters including projectId, baseUrl, profile, and frontendUrl. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and the 'limit' parameter lacks a description in both the schema and the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a clear resource ('recent graph-producing sync runs') scoped to a project. It is distinguishable from sibling graph tools like projects_graph_get or projects_graph_timeline, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 tool is appropriate when the agent needs recent sync-run history for a project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related graph tools or what conditions would make a sibling more appropriate.

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