sync_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait beyond the name: the returned state is surfaced 'without exposing the token,' and it enumerates what state is reported. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees, idempotency, or side effects beyond the implicit 'Return' verb.

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 sentences, zero waste. The return payload is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage context follows in the second, which is the right ordering for a status check.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be in the description, and there are no parameters to explain. For a zero-arg read tool, the combination of scope, safety note, and usage trigger is complete.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 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 (Return) and precisely enumerates the resource details returned: connected folder, glob, watcher state, and last sync result. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling status tools like fandom_cache_status and runtime_capabilities, which cover different state.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'to confirm whether the MCP is connected before editing, deleting, or syncing scripts.' This gives clear triggering context. It does not, however, name alternative status tools or any when-not-to-use condition.

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