syncthing_folder_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what "status" contains (state, errors, sync progress), whether the target folder must exist, or how the instance parameter affects routing.

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?

Two words are short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is nothing front-loaded because there is essentially no content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation detail on return shape, yet the description never explains what status data comes back or in what form. For a tool whose entire value is its returned payload, this leaves the agent unable to predict the result.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It mentions none: neither the required folder identifier, the optional fields projection, nor the optional instance selector is clarified anywhere.

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?

"Folder status." merely restates the tool name (syncthing_folder_status) with no verb or scope added. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like syncthing_folder_statistics, syncthing_folder_config, or syncthing_folder_completion, all of which could plausibly return "folder status."

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?

No indication of when to call this versus the many folder-related siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a configured folder ID), exclusions, or which situations this tool is meant for.

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