get_integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation (get) and mentions the return content, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not modify anything, or describe any side effects. It also lacks details on error behavior or required permissions. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval but not rich.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it achieves clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, one required, and the description does not explain the optional host parameter, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which covers return structure), the description fails to clarify the meaning of host or any limitations (e.g., if the integration must exist). This leaves an agent uncertain about parameter usage.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters (integration_id and host). The description mentions neither parameter, leaving their purpose and format entirely to inference. This is a critical gap; the description should at least clarify that integration_id is the identifier and explain what host modifies, but it does not.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'One integration instance in full, including the entities it has configured.' This specifies the verb (get), the resource (integration instance), and the scope (full details plus entities). It distinguishes from siblings like list_integrations (which lists many) and list_integration_entities (which lists entities separately) by emphasizing it's a single full instance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for detailed single-integration retrieval, nor does it reference siblings or exclusion conditions. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'one integration instance in full,' which is insufficient.

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