list_integrations

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

Annotations already declare readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context on return fields (id, name, slug, provider, status, etc.) but doesn't elaborate on pagination details or authentication requirements, which are partially covered by the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and filters, followed by a use case and return information. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 rich annotations, complete schema, and presence of an output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and usage context. Minor omission: no mention of pagination behavior beyond schema, but that is documented elsewhere.

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 baseline is 3. The description references 'optional workspace or type filters,' which maps to the 'workspace_id' and 'type' parameters, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No compensation needed.

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 'List org-level AI provider connections with optional workspace or type filters' – a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates from siblings like 'list_integration_models' and 'list_integration_workspaces' by indicating it returns integration details and slugs, which are prerequisites for updates.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this to find integration slugs before model or workspace updates,' providing a clear use case. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use it, the context implies this is the correct tool for discovering integrations.

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