saved_posts_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only in nature (returns statistics and status) but doesn't state whether it triggers any side effects or has any rate limits. It doesn't describe what 'last sync run status' entails (e.g., success/failure details, timestamps) or what the database path refers to. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the exact content of the return. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool that retrieves status information, with no wasted words.

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 is simple with no parameters and the output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It doesn't explain the format of the output statistics or status, but the output schema presumably provides that. For a status-check tool of this simplicity, the description is mostly complete, though it could benefit from clarifying whether this is a read-only operation.

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 input schema is empty (schema coverage 100% by default). The description correctly doesn't mention parameters since there are none. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. It adds value by specifying the exact output categories.

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 returns three specific pieces of information: cache statistics, database path, and last sync run status. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on posts or notes directly, since this tool is about system status rather than content.

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 implies a diagnostic or monitoring use case ('Return cache statistics, database path, and last sync run status'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other sync-related tools like sync_saved_posts or sync_saved_notes. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that this is for checking sync status without triggering a sync.

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