get_users_syncs_by_id_paused

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly avoids restating those. It adds useful behavioral details: id is scoped to the authenticated user, pagination defaults (often 10) and maximums (often 250) with clamping rather than rejection. These go beyond what annotations provide and help the agent understand response limits and id resolution.

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: a one-line summary, the HTTP path, and a list of parameters with explanations. The pagination details are slightly verbose but necessary for correct invocation. No fluff or repetition; it earns its space.

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 read-only paginated endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: id semantics, pagination behavior, and auth scoping. It doesn't explain what a 'paused sync item' means, but that is domain-specific and unlikely to be ambiguous given the endpoint. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic load. It explains the id parameter thoroughly (numeric vs non-numeric segments, scoping), and provides pagination semantics (page number, limit defaults, clamping). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults, though page is only trivially described as 'The page number to retrieve'.

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 'Get paused sync items' with a clear verb and resource, and the endpoint path is included. It differentiates from siblings like get_users_syncs_by_id_skipped through the 'paused' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, though it could be slightly more detailed about what constitutes a 'paused sync item'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sync endpoints (e.g., get_users_syncs_by_id, get_users_syncs_by_id_skipped). It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. The id semantics note ('numeric vs non-numeric') is about parameter behavior, not selection criteria.

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