get_sync_run_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the diagnostic use case and clarifies that jobs are individual work units, which is useful context. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or the output shape, but the output schema exists and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the examples and diagnostic purpose are packed into the second sentence efficiently.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether jobs are returned in any particular order or whether the list could be large, but the output schema and annotations cover most of what an agent needs.

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 100%, so both parameters (runId and projectId) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('all jobs for a sync run'), and clarifies what jobs are with concrete examples ('apply_migration, deploy_edge_function, frontend_deploy'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_sync_run by focusing on the job-level breakdown, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to diagnose sync failures at the job level, which gives clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the job-level diagnostic purpose is enough to guide selection among siblings like get_sync_run and retry_sync_run.

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