query_sync_history

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: retention (latest 500 completed plus active), scope exclusions (no CLI syncs), no cloud calls, and exactly what is withheld (credentials, raw errors, health records). A rare case of the text genuinely extending the structured fields.

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-loaded with purpose first, then return shape, scope, retention, alternatives and pagination. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the sheer number of clauses packed into a single block makes it heavier than necessary.

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, but the description explains the return structure (data.jobs, data.pagination, next_offset null at end) and the empty-jobs meaning, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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 100% so the schema defines limit/offset fully, making 3 the baseline. The description adds pagination semantics not in the schema: next_offset is null at the end, and the guidance to keep filters unchanged while paging, which improves correct offset reuse.

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+resource ('List this account's MCP sync jobs') plus scope (newest first, from persistent local SQLite), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sync_status and cancel_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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and their conditions: 'Use get_sync_status for one ID and cancel_sync for a live background job.' It also clarifies what counts (foreground/background since install, not CLI syncs) and how to page (keep filters unchanged, avoid syncing between pages).

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