system_list_integrations

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only listing operation, but fails to mention any side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the tool performs a simple listing, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 'List all loaded integrations (config entries)' clearly states the verb ('list') and the resource ('loaded integrations'), with parenthetical clarification ('config entries'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_get_all_integrations or system_reload_integration, which have different purposes.

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. While the tool is straightforward, there is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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