List KB Sync Index Attempts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minor clarity by defining 'attempts' as 'sync runs', but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination order or default response format.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler words or redundancy; every part contributes to defining the tool's function.

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 simple list operation, 3 parameters, and read-only annotations, the description is adequate. It does not explain what data is returned or ordering, but the schema covers limit/offset and the tool name clarifies the resource. Minor gap: no note on attempt status or typical usage.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('index attempts (sync runs)') for a connector-credential pair. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like 'lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_list' by specifying 'index attempts', though it could more explicitly contrast with 'get_attempt'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_get_attempt' or when to set limit/offset. The description simply restates the action without context on filtering or use cases.

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