integration_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required scope and governance (Arbiter policy and ProofLink receipt), which are useful. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the health-check nature implies safety. Could be more detailed about side effects or failure modes.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope; the second adds access and governance. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, integrations, return type, permissions, and governance. It could specify the output structure more precisely, but it is sufficient for a simple aggregation tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to document.

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 explicitly states that the tool performs a parallel health check across all wired integrations (Langfuse, RAGflow, Shuffle, Tactical RMM, MeshCentral, Probo compliance) and returns ok:true/false plus metadata. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like langfuse_health, mesh_health, etc., which are individual checks.

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 mentions the required scope (integrations:status:read) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus individual health checks. While it implies a comprehensive use case, it lacks direct alternatives or exclusions, making it adequate but not explicit.

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