cork_get_connected_integrations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the shape and semantics of the return data, especially the RMM installer block, and 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation. It does not discuss auth or errors, but no hidden side-effect or surprising behavior is apparent for this tool.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds the unusual RMM-specific output detail, and the third connects the tool to sibling workflows. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers what the list contains, its unique RMM installer semantics, how to combine it with cork_get_client_devices, and which sibling tools consume the resulting UUIDs. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently characterizes the return value and the invocation context.

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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema fully documents page, page_size, and partner_uuid. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('integrations connected to Cork'), then enumerates distinguishing content (vendor, connection status, sync details, installer block). The phrase 'connected' differentiates it from the sibling cork_get_available_integrations without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use with cork_get_client_devices to map device connections and use the result to feed UUIDs into three downstream integration tools. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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