Catence sync progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' clearly indicating no mutation side effects, and details the scope of data returned (live heartbeats plus recent completed/interrupted runs). It stops short of describing output format or any rate/pagination limits, but the primary behavioral trait is covered.

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?

Two tight sentences with no fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded, the read-only caveat is clearly placed, and the parameter prerequisite is provided in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: what it reads, that it is safe, and where to obtain the required ID. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not characterize the returned heartbeat payload or note any real-time streaming behavior, but the tool's low complexity keeps the gap small.

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 schema only declares athleteId as a string with a pattern, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that athleteId comes from list_athletes, giving the agent actionable provenance for the parameter. It does not elaborate on the ID's meaning beyond its name, but for a single obvious parameter this is sufficient.

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 ('Read') with a clear resource: 'live progress heartbeats for active sync runs, plus the most recent completed or interrupted runs.' This distinguishes it from related sync tools like start_detached_sync and catence_status in intent, even without naming them.

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?

It states a useful prerequisite ('Requires athleteId from list_athletes') and declares read-only nature, which helps an agent know when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over catence_status or start_detached_sync, leaving some usage selection to inference.

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