aap_get_project_sync_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the return is JSON with status, elapsed time, and output preview, which goes beyond the annotations alone. No contradictions are present.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and return value. Each part earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with annotations and an output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and return format, though it could explicitly mention that the update_id comes from a prior sync_project call. However, the schema description fills that gap.

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 description's argument list merely restates the parameter name and type ('update_id (int): Project update ID') without explaining what the update ID refers to or where to obtain it. The schema's own description ('Project update ID from sync_project response') is actually more informative, so the description adds little value beyond the structured schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets the status of a project SCM sync, using the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'project SCM sync'. It is distinct from sibling tools like aap_get_project or aap_get_workflow_status, which target other resources.

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 clearly implies this tool is used to check the status of a project sync, whether ongoing or completed. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context of 'project SCM sync' and the sibling aap_sync_project make the usage context clear.

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