conduyt_fromk_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does: it declares the HTTP verb/path (a read), states the access requirement 'Requires settings:view', and notes the API key is returned masked (important safety context). It doesn't say what happens when no connection exists or how errors surface, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and endpoint before fanning out into returned fields. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical nesting of the lines snapshot fields makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's field-by-field enumeration—status enum values (connected | not_configured), masked key, phoneNumberId/phoneE164/status/provider/sendReady, webhook URL, secret-stored flag, events—is what lets an agent reason about the response. It also tells the agent what the webhook URL is for (paste into FromK.ai → Developers → Webhooks), which is actionable context no structured field provides.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. Nothing in the description contradicts this—the operation is fully keyed off the authenticated account/tenant context, which the text makes explicit ('for this account').

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?

Opens with the specific resource and endpoint (GET /api/v1/settings/fromk) and enumerates exactly what is read: connection status, masked key, lines snapshot, webhook setup. This clearly separates it from conduyt_fromk_connect (which would mutate) and conduyt_fromk_lines, though the phrase 'connection for this account' momentarily reads like a connection action rather than a status read.

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?

Usage is only implied: it's a status getter, so an agent can infer 'call this to check whether FromK.ai is set up before calling conduyt_fromk_connect'. But the description never states when to prefer it over conduyt_fromk_webhook_secret or conduyt_fromk_lines, nor what to do when status is not_configured.

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