get_sync_schema_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: these are gaps that won't be re-offered by future syncs, each entry means the file exists but is missing from the DB, and it explicitly warns against automatic re-application. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent crucial safety guidance.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, then explains the conditions, meaning, healthy case, and usage instruction. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The length is justified given the complexity of the scenario.

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?

With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. The description covers what the tool lists, why these gaps exist, what each entry signifies, the healthy case, and how to handle the results. For a list tool with one parameter, this is complete.

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% for the single projectId parameter, which is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any new meaning about the parameter's format or constraints, but it doesn't need to since the schema covers it. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it lists SQL migrations that continuous sync failed to apply or skipped, and explains why they won't be re-offered. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sync_runs or get_sync_run by focusing on migration gaps rather than run history. The verb 'list' and specific resource (SQL migrations) make it unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on what to do with the output: report to the user and do NOT re-apply automatically. It also explains the healthy case (empty list) and implies when to use it (to identify schema gaps). While it doesn't name alternatives, the instruction not to re-apply is a clear usage directive that prevents misuse.

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