sync_windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' mention is redundant, but the description adds useful context: it lists reasons for windows that cannot participate, and indicates the output includes current values. This goes beyond the annotation and gives an agent a sense of what to expect from the response.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the reason-listing behavior and the usage directive. No filler or 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage timing, and output nature (windows with values and reasons). An agent can confidently decide when to call it and interpret the result.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description needs no parameter explanation since there are none to clarify.

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 explicitly states the tool lists open profile windows, which ones can participate in value distribution, and the value each holds. It also notes that non-participating windows are listed with reasons. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync_spread and sync_insert, which perform the actual distribution, by framing sync_windows as a read-only inspection step.

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 explicitly instructs to call it before sync_spread and sync_insert, giving a clear temporal ordering. It also implies the tool is for checking eligibility and current values before any distribution, which is a distinct use case among the sync-related siblings.

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