nexterm_get_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context with 'sanitized,' signaling that secrets/credentials are redacted before return. It does not describe what fields are included or whether a missing ID errors or returns empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, stating the verb and the resource immediately. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with no described output schema.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only and idempotent profile, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the description does not clarify what 'metadata' includes (e.g., name, type, status, configuration summary), which an agent needs to decide whether this tool suffices or whether a monitoring-specific sibling is required.

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 0%, so the schema supplies only a type and minimum for integration_id. The description compensates minimally by indicating the ID refers to 'one Nexterm integration,' and the parameter name is self-explanatory for a numeric identifier. Still, there is no explicit statement of what a valid integration_id represents or what happens with invalid values.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('sanitized metadata for one Nexterm integration'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent read tools like nexterm_get_integration_monitoring, but the 'metadata' framing is distinct enough from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus looking up the same integration through other means, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The sentence states only what the tool returns, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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