treeflow_list_integrations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lista' implies a read-only status retrieval and the examples clarify scope, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, what 'estado' includes, or whether any permissions are required.

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 redundant words. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples add useful specificity without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides sufficient context to understand what is returned at a high level: statuses of channels and integrations. It could be richer by describing the output format or the meaning of 'estado', but the low complexity and clear parameter make the tool reasonably complete.

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 already fully describes the only parameter, tree_id, as 'ID del bot/árbol' (100% schema coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a concrete resource ('el estado de los canales e integraciones de terceros'), with clarifying examples. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like treeflow_configure_integration, which implies configuration rather than listing.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the status of channels or third-party integrations. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when another tool like treeflow_configure_integration would be more appropriate.

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