list_integrations

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

No annotations provided, so the description shoulders the full burden. It only states 'List integrations' with categories, omitting behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool side effects.

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, but it lacks structural elements like a summary or usage notes. Its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information, making it only marginally better than a tautology.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify return format and behavior (e.g., whether it returns all integrations or just names). The current description only lists categories, leaving the agent guessing about the response structure and default behavior.

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% with each parameter having a clear description and enum values. The description adds minimal extra value beyond listing example categories that loosely map to the category enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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, listing example categories. This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from analysis and compliance siblings. However, it does not explicitly state what the list contains (e.g., names, IDs), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 other list_* siblings or alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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