get_users_syncs_by_id_skipped

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: id is scoped to the authenticated user, the id segment has different matching behavior, and pagination defaults/caps are explained. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it stops short of describing the response shape or edge cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint and argument explanations are relevant. The pagination sentence is slightly dense but informative, and no part feels redundant with the schema.

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?

With a solid output schema and strong annotations, the description provides enough parameter and behavior detail to invoke the tool correctly. It covers pagination, auth scoping, and id semantics. The main gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance and the mildly irrelevant non-numeric segment remark.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It covers id, page, and limit with useful context: id's numeric behavior and user scoping, page meaning, and limit defaults/capping. The 'non-numeric segment' note is somewhat confusing given id is typed as integer, which prevents a 5.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Get skipped sync items.' This identifies the tool's purpose precisely. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_users_syncs_by_id or get_users_syncs_by_id_paused, so it falls short of 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 usage through the resource name but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. No sibling comparisons, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided. The pagination notes are useful but do not address tool selection.

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