bus_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contract ('Returns headSeq to store as the next cursor') and the catch-up replay semantics, which is real value. It is silent on read-only/destructive nature, ordering guarantees, and what happens when no events exist or when the result is truncated by the default limit.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core scoping concept (catch-up after a sequence number) is front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries information.

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 2-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and the key return field. It is not complete enough: pagination/limit behavior and the absence of any safety or idempotency statement leave gaps an agent would have to discover by calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the cursor model for sinceSeq well ('after a sequence number', headSeq as next cursor), but it never mentions limit (default 500) or its page-size meaning, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Catch-up sync: all provenance events after a sequence number.' The parenthetical explains the exact intent (offline replay) so an agent can distinguish this from a general listing call. It never names a sibling like bus_events, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear scenario for use: an agent that was offline replays exactly what it missed, driven by a stored cursor. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to bus_events/bus_search as the alternative for live or filtered queries, so the guidance is contextual but incomplete.

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