content_get_sync_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond echoing the REST path, which is already the annotation title; it doesn't say what a sync request record represents or how missing ids behave.

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 terse lines with the verb front-loaded and no filler. The second line (the HTTP path) is largely redundant with the annotation title, a small waste but not harmful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a sync request response contains (status, timestamps, source). It says nothing about return shape or error conditions, so an agent knows how to invoke it but not what to expect back.

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 100%, with the id property documented as a UUID path parameter and apiVersion explained inline. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get a sync request by id'), which is unambiguous about what the call does. It offers no differentiation from related content tools such as content_sync_history or content_schedule_sync, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like content_sync_history or content_list_content_sources, and no prerequisites or context (e.g., that an id comes from a sync trigger). The only signal is the required id parameter in the schema.

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