list_integrations

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, request limits, or potential side effects. The description only states the basic action.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose, though it could benefit from additional structure or details.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It fails to mention return format, pagination, or how the 'refresh_secret' parameter affects the output. However, given the low complexity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It references the 'environment' parameter but does not explain the 'refresh_secret' boolean parameter at all. The term 'configured' is vague regarding what integrations are included.

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 integrations configured in one Nango environment, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_integration' (specific) and 'create_integration' (creation). However, it does not specify whether it returns all integrations or a subset.

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 (e.g., get_integration for a single integration). The context must be inferred from the tool name and siblings.

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