sync_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the return shape (jobId, state, total, completed, summary, warnings, error) and explains null/unknown meanings. It does not mention side effects, but 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are likely. The level of detail is strong for a status tool.

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 longer than a typical one-liner, but it is dense and structured with the return object in braces, using spaces and parentheses for clarity. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without loss. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details all possible state values, null semantics, and the meaning of an unknown jobId. There is no obvious missing behavior; the tool's functionality is fully described.

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 schema covers jobId with 'Identifier returned by sync_start.' The description adds meaning by explaining that an unknown jobId indicates replacement/loss, and by showing jobId in the return structure. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter comment.

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 starts with 'Get the current or latest sync job record' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sync_start (which creates a job) and status (which likely relates to something else) by focusing on sync job state retrieval.

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 the intended context: to poll or inspect a previously started sync job. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the mention of 'unknown jobId means the job was replaced by a newer one or lost with a previous server process' gives practical guidance on interpreting results, which helps decide when this tool is useful.

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