sync_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-destructive behavior ('without writing anything'), which is critical. However, it doesn't mention whether the dry-run still makes remote reads, requires authentication, or how the report is structured, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence. The key qualifier 'Dry-run' is front-loaded, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the critical no-write guarantee. It could benefit from a small note on the report format, but the phrase 'reports what would be pushed, pulled or created' provides sufficient context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('dir' and 'folder') are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('reports') with a clear resource ('what would be pushed, pulled or created') and explicitly identifies as a dry-run of sync_now, clearly distinguishing it from the execution sibling.

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 phrase 'Dry-run of sync_now' signals this is a preview companion to sync_now, implying it should be used to check effects before executing. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the relationship is unambiguous.

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