sync_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two key behavioral traits: the work is bounded (at most one incremental batch per resource, not a full sync) and completion requires the caller to keep invoking it. It does not mention whether data is mutated locally, permission requirements, or partial-failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and its bound, followed by the continuation caveat. Every clause adds operational information; nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the surface is small. The description covers scope and the caller-continuation contract, but omits mutation semantics and concurrency/error behavior that an agent triggering a sync would benefit from.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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?

States a specific action (execute at most one incremental batch each for activities and daily metrics), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings like query_activities and get_overview. It is clear what the tool does, though the description doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

"立即" (immediately) implies this is the on-demand trigger versus passive reads, and the note that long tasks are continued by the caller implies repeated invocation is expected. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the get_* tools or what happens if a sync is already running.

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