dev_list_integration_creds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it lists credentials, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination, or potential side effects. A list operation is generally safe, but more detail would improve transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient but could include more details without being verbose.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about return format or what constitutes 'integration credentials'. However, for a simple list operation, it is somewhat adequate.

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?

Input schema covers the single parameter with a description 'The project ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists integration credentials for a Lamatic project. The verb 'list' and resource 'integration credentials' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dev_list_model_creds by resource type, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dev_list_model_creds or dev_get_cred_info. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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