get_integration

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

The description adds the behavioral detail 'secrets redacted', which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The tool is likely a safe read, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and a notable behavior (secrets redacted).

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 get-by-id operation with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It could mention that the response includes integration details minus secrets, but the current description is sufficient for basic use.

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 fully describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by id' matching the required 'id' parameter. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one installed integration by id', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_integrations, install_integration, etc. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies use when retrieving a single integration by id, but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_integrations for listing all) or when not to use this tool. No prerequisites or decision context provided.

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