get_table_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. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the description lists the returned fields (enabled state, sync mode, metadata). However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation fails for invalid connection_ids, whether it triggers any side effects, or how the response is structured. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that presents the main action and the key output components without superfluous words. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level summary of the response content (enabled state, sync mode, metadata). It could be more precise about the response format or fields included under 'metadata', but it covers the core information an agent needs to decide whether this tool fits the request. The presence of sibling tools like get_sync_status and get_sync_logs creates a need for more explicit distinction, which is partially met.

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 only parameter, connection_id, is documented in the schema with 'The connection ID'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond placing it in the context of per-table sync status. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource 'per-table sync status for a connection', then lists the specific content: 'enabled state, sync mode, and metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sync_status (overall sync status) and get_sync_logs (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 clearly implies the use case: querying per-table sync status for a connection. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the contrast with sibling tool get_sync_status is apparent from the wording and name. It provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over others, though it stops short of naming alternatives explicitly.

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