Get Kalyvox integrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation that returns a set of items, which is transparent for a simple zero-parameter tool. However, the qualifier 'main' is vague and does not explain filtering criteria or whether the result is exhaustive, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without waste.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (main integrations). It is complete enough for basic invocation, though the vague 'main' qualifier and absence of any sibling differentiation slightly reduce completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the parameter surface. Per the baseline for zero-parameter schemas, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 ('List') and resource ('main integrations available with Kalyvox'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_kalyvox_features and get_kalyvox_links by naming a distinct resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of a preferred context, exclusions, or a pointer to a sibling, despite several closely related tools existing. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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