sync_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to justify non-mutation. It adds useful context—'cross-machine' scope, 'this node id', and 'how many origin nodes this DB has seen'—but it does not disclose traits like freshness, timing, or whether this tool triggers or reflects sync activity. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the domain and then provides a tight field list. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or unnecessary prose.

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 no-argument, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description contains enough context for correct invocation. It could be more complete by distinguishing itself from sync_peers and sync_now, but that gap is already reflected in the usage-guidelines score.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no input semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output fields rather than inputs.

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 identifies the resource as 'Cross-machine sync status' and enumerates the specific fields returned (node id, peer count, listen address, oplog size, origin-node count), which distinguishes it from sync_peers and sync_now. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so it doess not quite rise to a 5.

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 this tool is for inspecting cross-machine sync state, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sync_peers, sync_now, or live_status. An agent is left to infer the right choice from the tool name alone.

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