Contract Testing: List Integrations

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it retrieves workspace-level integrations, not a team-filtered subset. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the safety profile is well covered.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the parameter list is scannable. The parameter block duplicates the input schema somewhat, which is mild redundancy, but the overall definition is compact and well-organized.

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 straightforward, read-only listing operation with two optional and fully documented pagination parameters, the definition is largely complete. The main gaps are that there is no output schema and the description does not explain the response shape or reconcile 'all' with the paginated pageSize default, but these are moderate gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including types, defaults, and descriptions. The description repeats the schema information without adding deeper semantics, such as range constraints, ordering, or pagination envelope details. This matches the baseline for fully schema-documented 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve all consumer-provider integrations registered in the workspace.' The workspace-level scope is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_integrations_by_team, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use it—when the agent needs all consumer-provider integrations in the workspace—and the pagination parameters suggest batch retrieval. It does not provide explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or when a more specific endpoint like get_integrations_by_team should be preferred.

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