distillery_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 tool's primary behavior (checking sync job status, filtering by job_id or source_url, and listing all recent jobs when neither is given). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe the response format, pagination, or potential errors. This leaves some ambiguity about side effects and output structure, though the name and purpose imply a non-mutating status check.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, then lists each parameter in a clear format, and concludes with the default behavior. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool 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?

The core usage is covered, but for a status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits details about the response structure (e.g., what fields are in each job status), whether there are any access limitations, or what constitutes a valid job_id or source_url format. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is partially acceptable, but an agent might still need to infer expected output.

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 clearly explains the semantic meaning of both job_id and source_url, including the fallback behavior when neither is provided. It does not detail whether both can be combined or the expected data format, but it adds significant value beyond the bare type information in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of background sync jobs'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like distillery_status (general status) and other distillery tools. The purpose is unambiguous and the parameter examples reinforce the scope.

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 explains exactly when to use each parameter (job_id, source_url, or none) and what result each produces. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context of 'background sync jobs' differentiates it from other distillery tools. The lack of a direct contrast with distillery_status is a minor gap.

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