get_sync

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 behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get details' operation, implying it's likely a read-only fetch, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and parameter details following in a structured format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks context on usage and behavior, making it only minimally adequate for the agent to operate effectively.

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 adds minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'id' is 'The sync ID', which provides basic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Id'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, but it meets the baseline since the schema coverage is low and the description adds some value.

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: 'Get details for a specific sync.' This is a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('sync'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'get_bulk_sync' or 'get_sync_status', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_bulk_sync', 'get_sync_status', and 'list_syncs', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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