list_sync_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists execution history with a default limit, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'execution history' entails (e.g., statuses, timestamps). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section, though this is minor.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more guidance on behavior and alternatives to be fully complete.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'id' as 'The sync ID' and 'limit' as 'Maximum number of executions to return (default 10)', which clarifies purpose beyond the schema's basic types. However, it does not cover parameter constraints (e.g., format of 'id', range for 'limit') or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 as 'List execution history for a sync,' which is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('execution history for a sync'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sync_execution' (singular) and 'list_bulk_sync_executions' (bulk variant), but could be more explicit about the distinction from 'list_bulk_sync_executions' to reach a 5.

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 like 'get_sync_execution' (for a single execution) or 'list_bulk_sync_executions' (for bulk syncs). It mentions the 'id' parameter but does not specify prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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