list_sync_progress_up_next

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: pagination defaults vary by endpoint, limits are clamped rather than rejected, and `lifetime_stats` changes whether counters reflect lifetime totals or the current session, including a reference to the reset endpoint. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 short purpose line, the HTTP endpoint, and an `Args` list where each parameter has its own line. It front-loads the operation and avoids filler, though the phrase 'Get up next.' is minimal and the Args list is mostly one-liners.

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?

The description documents all 7 optional parameters and includes an output schema is present, but it omits important context: what an 'up next' item actually is, what the response contains, and how this tool differs from the sibling `list_sync_progress_up_next_nitro` and `list_sync_progress_watched`. An agent is left without enough information to reliably pick this tool among sync-progress alternatives.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It gives at least a one-line explanation for every parameter, and adds significant operational detail for `limit` (defaults, clamping) and `lifetime_stats` (session vs lifetime semantics). However, `extended`, `sort_by`, and `sort_how` remain surface-level with no allowed values or format hints, so it is not perfect.

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?

"Get up next." plus the endpoint `GET /sync/progress/up_next` clearly states a read operation for a resource named 'up next', but it never defines what 'up next' means or distinguishes it from siblings like `list_sync_progress_up_next_nitro` and `list_sync_progress_watched`. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is shallow.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_sync_progress_up_next_nitro` or `list_sync_progress_watched`. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or selection heuristics, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the endpoint path.

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