Get KB Sync Status

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing that the response includes both the active and last completed index attempts, which is beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail status fields, error behavior, or edge cases like missing attempts, so it adds only modest context.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' followed immediately by the resource and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and it doesn't repeat the title or the 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it states the purpose and previews the return content (active and last completed attempts). Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the returned status structure would strengthen it, but the essential semantics are covered.

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 for the single parameter is 100% — cc_pair_id is already described as 'The connector-credential pair id'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description's mention of 'connector-credential pair' merely mirrors the schema without adding format details, constraints, or guidance on how to obtain the ID (e.g., via the list tool).

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('current sync status for a connector-credential pair') and specifies the scope ('including its active and last completed index attempts'). It distinguishes from siblings like lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_get and lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_list_attempts by focusing on the aggregated status view, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_get, lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_list_attempts, or lyzr_kb_sync_cc_pairs_list. It states what the tool does but offers no context for selection, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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