sync_desktop

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds valuable context beyond them: only writes to the local store, duplicates are skipped, a 60-second overlap is used, first-run behavior is described, and external prerequisites are listed. It also describes return fields including since and incremental, so behavior is unusually transparent.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core incremental-import behavior, then adds requirements, side effects, and return shape in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful operational information and none is redundant.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their meaning, including since and incremental. It also covers prerequisites, local-write-only behavior, and the relationship to import_desktop, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to interpret; the description explicitly states 'No parameters,' which is appropriate. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool and adds no misleading detail.

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 and resource ('Incrementally import new messages from Signal Desktop into signal-mcp's local store') and immediately distinguishes the operation from import_desktop by emphasizing incremental scope. An agent can identify what the tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling without opening any 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: repeat calls are fast because only messages newer than the last sync are read, while the first call imports everything like import_desktop. It also gives a direct alternative rule: 'Use import_desktop only for a deliberate full re-scan.'

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