send_sync_request

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the call is asynchronous, returns status 'sync requested' immediately, and the data arrives through the normal receive loop. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if the primary device is offline.

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?

Front-loads the action, then delivery semantics, then routing alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses the immediate return status and the later asynchronous arrival path, so an agent knows both what it gets back and what happens next. Complete for a zero-parameter trigger tool.

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?

Zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. The description confirms 'Takes no parameters,' so nothing is left ambiguous.

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 verb and resource ('Ask your primary Signal device to send this linked device its contacts, groups and settings') and explicitly separates itself from siblings like receive_messages and send_contacts_sync. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when list_contacts or list_groups is missing entries that exist on your phone'), a scope constraint ('meant for linked setups'), an exclusion ('does not fetch new messages — use receive_messages'), and the reverse-direction alternative ('send_contacts_sync').

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