usp_sync_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses optional filtering by status. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention any potential side effects, or describe paging, ordering, or limits. This is insufficient for a retrieval tool.

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 (one short phrase), front-loading the purpose. However, it may be too brief given the lack of other documentation. For a simple tool, it earns a 4.

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?

Despite having an output schema (assumed), the description omits key behavioral details like ordering (chronological?), maximum results, and whether empty status returns all runs. Without annotations, the agent needs more context to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It notes that status is a filter, but does not explain the meaning of each enum value (pending, running, succeeded, failed) or how filtering behaves (e.g., exact match, inclusive). The parameter's default of null is not clarified.

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 retrieves past sync runs with optional status filtering, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it uses a noun phrase ('Past sync runs') rather than an action verb like 'List' or 'Retrieve', slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like usp_sync (trigger sync) and usp_sync_status (current status) implicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as usp_sync_status for current sync state or usp_sync to start a new sync. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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