sync_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what happens on duplicate syncs, or if it modifies the source database. It lacks details on authorization needs or error conditions.

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 organized into clear sections: purpose, prerequisites, database paths, environment variables, and args. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly verbose on path details, every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers setup requirements and parameter usage, but lacks information on return values, side effects (e.g., data storage location in the study), and what 'sync' entails behaviorally. Given no output schema, the description should clarify outcomes.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the single parameter 'conversation_id' as an optional filter that accepts 'ID, name, phone number, or profile name'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 'Sync Signal Desktop messages from the local encrypted database', specifying the verb (sync), resource (Signal Desktop messages), and unique scope (local encrypted database). It distinguishes from sibling sync tools (e.g., sync_discord, sync_telegram) by naming Signal specifically and providing platform-specific database paths.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like importing data from other sources. It only lists prerequisites (Signal Desktop, pysqlcipher3) but does not mention scenarios where sync_signal is appropriate or when to use other sync/import tools.

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