List CRM sync runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the required scopes, the data sensitivity level (full_content), and explicitly that idempotency is not required — useful auth and side-effect context not present in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the plain-language purpose, then a compact block of operational metadata (endpoint, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency, workspace override). Each line carries distinct information; no redundant restatement of the title.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns conceptually, the endpoint, auth requirements, and the workspace override. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 documents workspaceId and workspaceSlug, but the description adds the operative meaning: they override the default workspace configured by the environment. That is real semantic value beyond the schema's terse "Optional Luca workspace id override." The `id` parameter's role (the connection id in the path) is only implied.

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?

"List CRM sync history" gives a clear verb and resource, and the Luca operation line pins the exact endpoint GET /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/sync-runs. It is distinguishable from the sibling luca_integrations_crm_sync_runs_create by tense/purpose, though the description never explicitly contrasts 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 required scopes (integrations:read, luca:read) and that idempotency is not required, and notes the workspace override. These are prerequisites rather than when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for listing sync history versus other integration diagnostics.

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