get-sync-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns whether Mail.app is running and whether sync activity is detected, but it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or could trigger a sync. This leaves safety and interference aspects unaddressed.

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 optimally concise with three labeled sentences: 'Use when', 'Returns', and 'Do not use when'. It is front-loaded, every sentence provides distinct value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple parameterless status-check tool with an output schema. The description provides sufficient context to select and invoke the tool: it states the purpose, return values, and exclusions. The existence of an output schema means detailed return format explanations are unnecessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details since there are none.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: checking whether Mail.app is running and actively syncing. It explicitly lists what the tool returns, which distinguishes it from siblings like get-mail-stats and doctor.

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 explicitly includes 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, naming the exact conditions and pointing to specific alternative tools (get-mail-stats, doctor). This provides clear, actionable guidance for when to use this tool versus others.

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