sync_runs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only monitoring behavior and the included fields (status, row counts), but it does not clarify the meaning of 'recent', the ordering of results, or behavior when no runs exist.

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 extremely compact: a one-line result statement, a one-line purpose statement, and a minimal Args block. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add a note pointing to sync_run_log for detailed per-run logs, but this is not necessary for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: limit ('how many runs to return') and store ('restrict to one store'). The schema supplies enum values and defaults, so an agent has everything needed to use the parameters correctly.

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 that the tool returns recent sync runs with status and row counts, and it identifies the intended use case: checking whether data collection is working and when it last ran. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling sync_run_log, but the resource and purpose are unmistakable.

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 says exactly when to use the tool: to check data collection health and the time of the last run. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly point to alternatives like sync_run_log for deeper per-run detail, but the stated use case is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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