listIntegrations

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that credentials (tokens, secrets, passwords, API keys, custom API header/param values) are masked as `********`, that `********` is rejected on create, and that certain OAuth providers are dashboard-managed. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds masking and creation caveats. The sentence about 'when you create an integration' is slightly tangential to a list operation, but it clarifies the meaning of the masked value, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the returned fields and the masking format. For a zero-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the integrations connected to your workspace') and specifies the returned fields (`id` and `integration_type`). It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling list* tools (listAgents, listWorkflows, listVoices) since it names the exact resource.

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?

Gives clear context: stored credentials are never returned on this read, real values must be sent when creating an integration, and OAuth-based providers are connected via the dashboard rather than here. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the conditions for use are well stated.

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