duo_list_integrations

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: secret keys are stripped before the tool returns a response. This is valuable context beyond the schema and annotations (which are absent). It also implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the secret-stripping disclosure is a strong addition.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the security-relevant behavior is stated succinctly in the second sentence.

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 two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is returned and a key security behavior. It could mention that pagination is supported, but the schema already covers limit/offset, so the description is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('integrations configured in the Duo account') and enumerates the returned fields (integration_key, name, type, status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like duo_get_integration (which fetches a single integration) and other list tools for different resources.

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 for listing integrations but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over duo_get_integration or other list tools. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but there is no explicit guidance.

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