cloud_sync_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes what information is shown, but does not disclose whether the check is live, cached, or if there are any side effects. It remains somewhat vague on operational behavior beyond listing outputs.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second provides additional detail on outputs. Very efficient.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions configuration status, last sync times, and connection health, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema covers all of them (none). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist, but it does clarify what the tool reports.

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 function: checking cloud sync configuration and connection status, with specific output details (configured, last sync times, connection health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_sync_pull and cloud_sync_push, which perform actions rather than status checks.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling names (status vs. pull/push), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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