list_config_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It helpfully lists the fields returned for each item (entry_id, domain, title, state, etc.), partially compensating for the missing output schema, but it does not disclose operational traits like pagination, authentication requirements, or ordering.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently lists return fields and the filter parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good amount of context: purpose, filter semantics with examples, and returned item fields. It falls short only on when-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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 single parameter `domain` is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), but the description explains its purpose ('Filter by domain') and gives concrete examples ('tuya' or 'wiz'). This adds meaningful clarity beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource: 'List installed integrations (config entries)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_config_entry or enable_config_entry, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives in the text.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_config_entry or other config-entry siblings. It only explains how to filter by domain, which is parameter usage rather than tool-level context.

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