get_sync_execution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 in the first sentence. The parameter list is clear but minimal. No unnecessary information is included, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from args more distinctly).

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it could better address behavioral aspects and parameter details.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by listing 'sync_id' and 'execution_id' with brief explanations, but doesn't clarify format, constraints, or where to obtain these IDs. This partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 execution.' It uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('sync execution'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sync' or 'list_sync_executions', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 siblings like 'get_sync' (for sync details) and 'list_sync_executions' (for multiple executions), the agent must infer usage from the name alone. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternatives are mentioned.

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