sync_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the latest job is retained, that stale or pre-restart jobIds raise errors, and that unreadable counts are not failures—detailed behavior beyond the input schema and likely important for correct usage.

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 yet comprehensive, with three paragraphs each serving a purpose: purpose, return values, and edge cases. No redundant statements; the first sentence front-loads the main function.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter input and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: retention policy, error conditions, and the special meaning of unreadable counts. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 documents a required string 'jobId' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining that jobId refers to a job from sync_start and that old IDs will error, giving lifecycle context. It doesn't explicitly say where the ID comes from, but it is 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?

The description opens with 'Poll a sync job started by sync_start,' using a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('sync job'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sync_start (which starts) and status (general), and it also enumerates the returned state and counts, reinforcing the exact function.

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 the tool is for polling a job 'started by sync_start,' indicating the intended workflow context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with the sibling 'status' tool, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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