list_integrations

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral warning: 'device_state is not a health signal: an instance reports CONNECTED while its entities are stale. Check the entities too.' This goes beyond a simple listing description and warns about a misleading field, which is critical for correct interpretation. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job of disclosing this caveat.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is front-loaded after the purpose. No wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and a single optional parameter. The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral caveat. It doesn't explain the 'host' parameter, but with an output schema present and a simple optional filter, the description is largely complete. The warning about device_state adds important context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 description must compensate. The description doesn't explain the 'host' parameter at all. However, the parameter is optional, has a default of null, and its name is fairly self-explanatory (likely filters by host). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the single optional parameter.

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: 'Installed integration drivers and their configured instances.' This clearly identifies what the tool lists. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_integration_entities or list_scope_entities, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the purpose.

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 implies usage: call this to see installed integration drivers and their instances. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_integration or list_integration_entities, but the context of listing installed drivers is reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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