list_integrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates non-mutating behavior through the verb 'Inspect' and clarifies that some integrations are 'roadmap' (planned, not yet available), which is a useful behavioral detail beyond just 'list'. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the inspection language strongly implies it, and it reveals the tool's focus on authentication status.

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 that packs significant detail: it names the integration categories, specific tools, and the purpose (push-back workflows). It is not overly verbose and every phrase adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating current vs roadmap) but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the scope and purpose. It explains what will be listed (ATS connectors and CRM bridges) and what information is relevant (which are authenticated). It does not describe return format, but that is not strictly required without an output schema. The roadmap distinction adds depth, making the description fairly complete for this complexity level.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the guidelines. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not add parameter-specific information because there are none. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema), so no compensation is needed.

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's function: to inspect/list MCP-aware ATS connectors and CRM bridges, naming specific systems (Bullhorn, JobAdder, Vincere, Salesforce, HubSpot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like push_to_ats (an action) and list_templates (a different resource) by specifying the resource (integrations) and the purpose (understanding authenticated pathways).

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 description implies usage context: it helps understand which integrations are authenticated for push-back workflows. This gives a clear scenario for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like push_to_ats are visible but not referenced in the description, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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