get_sync_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (sync state, last sync time, schedule, warnings/failures), which sets expectations, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or mention any permission or error conditions. For a simple get, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 sentence that directly states the resource and the specific data fields returned. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant words, and every part adds value.

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 read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what information it provides. It could be more explicit about behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only confirmation), but it does not leave the agent wondering about the tool's core purpose or return content.

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 input schema describes the only parameter (connection_id) as 'The connection ID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning or usage details about this parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current sync status for a connection' and enumerates the included data ('sync state, last sync time, schedule, and any warnings or failures'). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_connection_details or get_sync_logs.

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 description implies the tool is to be used when checking current sync status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_connection_details or get_sync_logs. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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