Get KB Sync Index Attempt

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already communicate that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'fetch by id', such as no mention of return format, error semantics, or the composite key requirement. It does not contradict annotations, and the scoping is mildly useful, but it offers little additional transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word adds meaning. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple fetch tool, the description is minimally viable, but it leaves gaps: no explanation of what an 'index attempt' is, no indication of what the response contains, and no mention of the need for cc_pair_id in addition to attempt_id. Since there is no output schema and annotations do not cover these aspects, a bit more context would be helpful for a well-rounded description.

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 are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; in fact, 'by id' could slightly mislead by implying a single ID, while both attempt_id and cc_pair_id are required. However, the schema clarifies this, so the description does not actively harm beyond missing an opportunity to explain the composite key.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('single index attempt'), and a scoping qualifier ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_attempts (plural/list) and cancel_attempt (cancel action). Despite not naming alternatives, the 'single' qualifier inherently contrasts with the list tool.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_list_attempts, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that you need an attempt ID, but no context is given for choosing this over related tools.

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