get_sync_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Inspect' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state 'does not modify data.' It adds value by mentioning 'retained projection failures,' but it does not disclose pagination behavior, what 'recent' means, or how league_id filtering works.

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 wasted words. It uses an action verb and clearly names the resources, making it easy to parse and mentally model the tool's function.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two optional parameters and an output schema, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage context. It provides only a high-level gist, leaving the agent uncertain about how to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., what limit and league_id do). This is incomplete for ensuring correct usage.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (limit and league_id). It fails to clarify whether 'limit' applies to number of sync records, failures, or both, and what 'league_id' filters. This is a significant gap for a tool with no parameter descriptions in 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('recent season/draft synchronizations and retained projection failures'). It distinguishes itself from sibling sync tools like sync_league and sync_draft by focusing on status inspection rather than performing a sync.

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 the tool is for checking sync status, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. It lacks exclusions like 'use this after a sync to verify success' or 'alternatively, use get_provider_status for provider-level info.'

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