get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (configuration, scopes, last sync result), which is useful behavioral context in the absence of an output schema.

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, clear sentence of ten words that fronts the verb and resource. It contains no wasted words or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and expected return values. It does not describe error behavior (e.g., integration not found), but that is a minor omission given the low complexity.

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 100% description coverage for the single required parameter integration_id ('Integration ID'). The description does not add further detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline for fully described schema parameters.

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 "Get one integration's configuration, scopes, and last sync result" clearly uses the verb 'Get' and specifies both the resource (one integration) and the scope of what is returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_integrations (which lists integrations) and toggle_integration (which toggles state).

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 phrase 'one integration' establishes clear context for when to use this tool—when you need details of a specific integration rather than a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with list_integrations is implied and the description is self-explanatory.

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